BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act s.11

Section 11, Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court applying Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act s.11, from 2025–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
2courts
2025–2026years

Embassy of Peru v. Union of India &Ors., LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025

Delhi High Court · Dismissed

Appeal dismissed, upholding registration of the geographical indication as PERUVIAN PISCO rather than PISCO standing alone. The Division Bench held that the power in section 11(6) to accept an application subject to "amendments, modifications, conditions or limitations" is, in its words, as wide as all outdoors and unfettered by any caveat in the statute, and extends to allowing registration subject to the GI being prefixed with the geographical identifier PERUVIAN. Although section 16(1) read in isolation speaks of registering the geographical indication of which registration is sought, it must be read in tandem with section 11(6). Peru was held entitled to surrender the registration if it did not want it, but not to registration of PISCO as a standalone GI.

Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire And Ors. v. PRADA Group and Ors., PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 72 OF 2025

Bombay High Court · Dismissed

Public interest litigation seeking to restrain a fashion house from selling toe ring sandals said to be deceptively similar to the GI tagged Kolhapuri Chappal was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners were neither registered proprietors nor authorised users of the geographical indication, and that an infringement action involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, so it cannot be brought by way of a petition under Article 226. It cautioned more generally that public interest litigation must not become a vehicle for individual benefit, and that where a statute creates a mechanism for the dispute, parties should be relegated to that forum.

Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v. Union Of India & Ors., CM 139/2022 & CM 59/2023

Delhi High Court · Set aside

The first-instance decision in the PISCO dispute. The Court set aside the appellate board's order and directed that the geographical indication be modified to carry the qualifier "Peruvian" before PISCO, with the Register amended accordingly. On the challenge to the applicant's standing, it held that section 11 permits an association of persons or producers, or an organisation or authority established by or under law, whether within or outside India, to apply, and that an embassy acting as an authority established under the law of its own state, which had made that state the official holder of the appellation of origin, was entitled to represent the interests of its farmers and producers.

Other provisions of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act

All 4 judgments on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 Search the IP Case Digest