Anjela Rajeev
Background
India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act (1999) under Article 22 of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. It required member states to protect signs identifying goods as originating from a specific territory – where a given quality, reputation or characteristic is essentially attributable to that origin. The Act was brought into force on 15 September 2003. This was done once the Geographical Indications Registry was established at Chennai. Under the Office of the Controller General of Patents , Designs and Trade Marks, Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade , Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999).
A geographical indication is a collective right, unlike a patent/copyright which vests in an individual inventor or author. Any eligible producer situated within the defined geographical area may use the registered mark upon obtaining authorised-user status and have protection valid for ten years and renewable in successive ten-year terms thereafter (Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999). Darjeeling Tea became India’s first registered GI in 2004–05 and the register has since expanded to cover agricultural produce, handicrafts, textiles, food products and manufactured goods across the country (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
Functioning
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act creates a two-tier structure of rights. A registration of the geographical indication itself and separate registration of individual authorised users entitled to affix the GI mark commercially. Applications are filed in Form GI-1 before the Registrar at Chennai. They are examined for distinctiveness and geographical linkage, published for opposition and registered under Sections 6–10 if unopposed or successfully defended. Section 27 additionally permits cancellation, variation or rectification of a registration that was improperly obtained has become misleading/generic (Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999). In contrast, enforcement is left almost entirely to private initiative.
Authorised users and registered proprietors ( frequently unorganised farmer or artisan collectives ) must pursue infringers on their own. This is done so as the statute provides no dedicated public enforcement machinery (Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, 2021).
Two recent administrative changes bear directly on functioning. First, the Geographical Indications of Goods rules of 2025 reduced GI application and related fees by 80% & cut the renewal fee from ₹3000 to ₹500. This was a deliberate attempt to lower entry costs for small producer groups (Dept for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade, 2025). Second, the GI e-Filing Portal was launched on 15 September 2026 ( designated “GI Day” ) to digitise filing, examination and renewal workflows across the Registry (Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications, 2026).
Performance
Quantitatively, the GI regime shows accelerating but still narrow uptake. As of the register maintained through 2026, India has more than 800 registered GI products. Out of which 607 have been granted since 2014. While the pool of authorised users ( the actual commercial beneficiaries of a GI tag ) has grown from 365 in 2015 to approximately 29,000 by January 2025 (Press Information Bureau, 2026). Uttar Pradesh leads the state-wise distribution with 81 GI-tagged products.
It is followed by Tamil Nadu (76) and Maharashtra (55). A large number of states remain in single digits.Which is an imbalance that is itself an official finding of the Registry’s own data rather than an external inference (Press Information Bureau, 2026). India’s absolute output remains modest. By the Registry’s own count, only about 1,167 applications had been received and 547 registered by December 2023 (Geographical Indications Registry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, 2024). India’s registered portfolio also skews structurally. Handicrafts account for roughly 45% and agricultural products around 30% of registrations. Whereas globally wines and spirits alone constitute 51.8% of all registered GIs.
This is a divergence that reflects India’s craft- and agriculture-heavy economy rather than any legal restriction (Geographical Indications Registry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, 2024). On the fiscal side, GI promotion is funded mainly through allied schemes rather than a dedicated budget line. The One District One Product initiative received a ₹5,000 crore allocation for establishing promotional malls across states in FY 2023–24 and the MSME Innovative Scheme’s intellectual-property component reimburses up to 100% of GI registration costs, capped at ₹2 lakh per registration (Press Information Bureau, 2026). Institutional capacity remains a constraint.
The CGPDTM’s own Annual Report 2024–25 records that delays in recruiting examiners have added to pendency across the unified patents-trademarks-GI office, even as filing volumes rise (Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications, 2025). Parliament has taken note on two occasions. The Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce’s 2021 review of the IPR regime recommended a centralised agency to enforce compliance with GI-tagging standards (Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, 2021). A subsequent Committee report has recommended accelerating disposal of pending GI applications as part of a wider agriculture and trade agenda (Parliament of India, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee, 2026).
Impact
The livelihood effects of GI recognition are visible but concentrated. The Ministry of Textiles estimates that GI status can raise rural artisans’ incomes by 30 % by improving market access & bargaining power (Ministry of Textiles, 2026). Muzaffarnagar Jaggery, GI-registered in 2023 offers a documented case. Its producer company exported roughly 30 metric tonnes to Bangladesh in 2025. This translating certification into income gains for 545 farmer-members (Press Information Bureau, 2026). GI status is increasingly used as a diplomatic instrument as well. Three metric tonnes of GI-tagged Indi Lime from Karnataka reached Oman in December 2025 under the India–Oman Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. New Zealand has committed to registering Indian GIs such as Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice.
India–EU negotiations for a dedicated GI chapter remain under way (Press Information Bureau, 2026). Independent commentary cautions, however, that beyond a small set of legacy names. Moreover, chiefly Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice — very few Indian GIs enjoy meaningful recognition or command a market premium abroad. Which limits how much of the sector’s export potential has actually been realised (Down To Earth, 2026). Read together, the quantitative gains (income uplift, first export consignments, new trade commitments) sit alongside a qualitative caveat. Impact so far is a story of a handful of flagship products rather than the broad-based rural transformation the Act’s architects envisaged.
Emerging Issues
Several structural gaps recur across official assessments.
First, enforcement remains the Act’s weakest link. With no centralised enforcement agency GI right-holders must privately litigate against counterfeiters. A gap the Parliamentary Standing Committee flagged in 2021 without a corresponding legislative amendment since (Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, 2021). Second, the government’s own explainer material acknowledges that many artisans and farmers remain unaware of GI registration, authorised-user status. The legal protections confer that counterfeit “GI-like” products continue to erode consumer trust in genuine producers (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
Third, the state-wise concentration of registrations. Three states accounting for a disproportionate share of the register indicates uneven institutional support rather than an uneven distribution of GI-eligible products across the country (Press Information Bureau, 2026). f three states account for 60% of all GI registrations, this does not necessarily mean that these states have 60% of the country’s GI-eligible products. Instead, it may indicate that institutions in these states have stronger systems for identifying, documenting, and registering eligible products.
Fourth, the Act does not precisely define “producer,” a gap that allows intermediaries to capture value intended for primary cultivators and artisans (Geographical Indications Registry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, 2024). Fifth, protection abroad depends entirely on bilateral or multilateral arrangements ( with the EU, and prospectively New Zealand ) so most registered GIs currently have no enforceable standing outside India (Press Information Bureau, 2026; Down To Earth, 2026). Finally, institutional capacity within the unified CGPDTM office continues to strain against rising filing volumes, a constraint the office’s own annual reporting acknowledges even after the 2026 digitisation of GI filing (Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications, 2025, 2026).
Way Forward
Over the past two decades, the GI Act’s main weakness has been implementation rather than legal design. The statute is sound and TRIPS-compliant. What is missing is the link between registration and real benefit for rural producers. Hence, that is where policy attention should now focus.
1. Strengthen enforcement. A GI that cannot be defended is little more than a certificate. Resource-poor producer collectives cannot police counterfeiting on their own. Moreover, enforcement has been thin as a result. A dedicated, adequately staffed enforcement mechanism, working with state excise, customs, and consumer-protection authorities would create more market value than expanding the registry further.
2. Define “producer” clearly. Under current rules, intermediaries and traders can capture much of the premium a GI tag is meant to deliver to the person who makes the product. A narrower definition which is tied to actual cultivation, artisanal labour or processing within the geographical area would ensure that fee waivers, export and marketing support reach the intended beneficiaries.
3. Make awareness-building a core function. Many states with few registered GIs have traditional products that could qualify. Registration drives there should be paired with sustained, ground-level support. Helping producers form cooperatives, understand authorised-user procedures and access existing schemes. Without this the fee reductions and digital filing will mainly benefit producers who were already organised enough to apply.
4. Put GI recognition in every trade negotiation. India should treat GI recognition as a standing agenda item and not just a concession to trade away. Each bilateral or regional agreement is a chance to secure automatic, reciprocal recognition of Indian GIs. Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice already enjoy such protection and it could be extended to saffron, handloom textiles, spices and processed foods before counterfeits establish themselves in foreign markets.
5. Treat GI as a rural development tool. GI policy should be framed less as an intellectual-property exercise and more as a rural development instrument, alongside tourism promotion, cluster-based skilling, and export infrastructure. Branding support, quality-testing facilities and market linkages built around the most promising GI clusters can turn a growing list of registrations into higher producer incomes. Income gains are ultimately the only fair measure of whether this legislation succeeds.
References
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. (2025). Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2025. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
Down To Earth. (2026). GI & Beyond 2.0 Summit in Delhi: India’s challenges in unlocking geographical indications for agricultural commodities. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/agriculture/as-the-gi-beyond-20-summit-starts-in-delhi-india-needs-to-reflect-on-hurdles-in-harnessing-potential-of-gis-for-agricultural-commodities
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
Geographical Indications Registry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. (2024). Registration statistics and sectoral composition of geographical indications in India [Registry data].
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications. (2025). Annual report 2024–25. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Government of India. https://ipindia.gov.in/storage/uploads/media/English_Annual_Report_2024-25.pdf
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications. (2026). Launch of the Geographical Indications (GI) e-Filing Portal, 15 September 2026. https://ipindia.gov.in/
Press Information Bureau. (2026). GI tags: Scaling traditional wealth into global brands. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=159418&ModuleId=3®=3&lang=1
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce. (2021). Review of the intellectual property rights regime in India (161st Report). Parliament of India.
Parliament of India, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee. (2026). Report on trade facilitation, MSME competitiveness, and allied recommendations.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020). Geographical indications statistics. WIPO.
About the Contributor
Angela Rajeev is a graduate in Political Science and History, with a minor in Economics, from Christ University, Bangalore. She approaches her research with a passion for gender, public policy, and geopolitics. As a Research and Editorial Intern at IMPRI, she works at the intersection of policy and culture while exploring issues related to governance, society and international relations.
Acknowledgements
The author extends sincere gratitude to the IMPRI team for their guidance and support along with the reviewers Ms. Gargi Bisht and Ms. Nivedya Murali for their valuable feedback and insights.
Disclaimer
All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organization
