One of the principle objective of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“Act”), is to preserve heritage from cultural appropriation and washing. Any marketing strategy which deceptively tries to use a Geographical Indication to promote goods that do not conform to and embody such Geographical Indication will amount to infringement.
Does this mean that every marketing practice which associates/refer to a GI amounts to infringement? Last year's Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal controversy saw arguments that Prada's footwear launch inspired by Indian traditional Kolhapuri Chappal is cultural appropriation and infringement of GI Tag. Prada did not use “Kolhapuri” during its launch but admitted that the collection is inspired.[1]
While this argument doesn't hold much (if not any) water under the Act, it leads to a larger question on whether GI protection would prohibit even an act of taking inspiration from a GI Tagged product.
The Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade (“DPIIT”) in November, 2025 issued draft guidelines for the use of Geographical Indications and the Geographical Indication (GI) Logo[2], which shows the regulator considers that an act of inspiration amounts to infringement.
We will attempt to evaluate whether the regulator is acting within the boundaries of the Act in taking this interpretation.
What is a GI?
Geographical indication (“GI”) is, essentially, an intellectual property right which protects the identity of a product in relation to its geographical origin and heritage.
Simply put, a product which has gained a reputation, whether because of the craftsmanship, quality or any other characteristic, attributable to its geographical origin is protected under the Act. “Darjeeling Tea”, “Kolhapuri Chappal”, and “Banarasi Sarees” are a few examples of products whose identities are tied to their respective geographical origins due to the quality of raw materials, craftsmanship etc. and have therefore received a GI tag under the Act. The legislative intent is to ensure the authenticity of goods from their particular geographical origin.
Unlike other forms of intellectual property rights, which offer monopolistic and exclusive rights to a single owner, a GI inherently cannot be limited to one person/entity; instead, it allows all the manufacturers/artisans who engage in manufacturing or supply of such product to seek protection against infringement. The Act allows any producer of the GI protected product to apply to be added as an “authorised user” of the GI and exploit the same.
Inspiration amounts to infringement?
To answer this question, let us see what actually amounts to infringement under the Act:
Section 22(1) of the Act, amongst other things, recognizes infringement of GI in two forms, i.e., use of GI:
(a) in any way which suggests that goods originate from a geographical area other than their true place of origin; or
(b) in a manner which constitutes unfair competition, including passing off.
The explanations appended to what qualifies as unfair competition clarify that it includes use of a GI which can mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, or characteristics of the goods.
The section[3] further goes on to add that any person who uses a GI on any goods or class of goods (notified for additional protection in sub-section (2) by the Central Government[4]) and accompanies it with expressions such as “kind”, “style”, “imitation” or “the like expression”, infringes such registered GI.
This principle, while embedded only in the context of class of goods specifically notified for additional protection under Section 22(2), can be (or so has been) used to confer protection on other GI-registered products which are not subject to any additional protection (“Non-Notified GI”), by reading the same into the doctrine of passing off. Using such expressions with a Non-Notified GI should amount to infringement only when it meets the test of (a) creating confusion with goods of a competitor or (b) misleading the public as to the true geographical origin of the goods.
The DPIIT in November 2025 issued draft guidelines for the use of Geographical Indications and the Geographical Indication (GI) Logo[5] (“Guidelines”), where amongst other things, it has stated that using terminology such as “inspired by” in relation to a GI product amounts to infringement. The Guidelines argue that use of this expression is deemed identical or similar to a registered GI and may lead a consumer to assume that the products on which this expression has been used have the same characteristics as those of a GI-tagged product. This would effectively prohibit any act of taking inspiration from a GI product, irrespective of whether the GI is notified for additional protection.
This argument by the regulator appears to be an overreach, for the reasons set out below:
a) First, the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis- The Guidelines borrow the principle set out in Section 22(3) and regurgitates the same terms used there, such as “style” and “kind”, and of their own volition club the expression “inspired by” with them (which the statute did not do). The statutory scheme states that using expressions such as “kind”, “style”, “imitation” or the like expression with a registered GI amounts to infringement. Thus, to check whether the addition of “inspired by” by the regulator is a sound interpretation of the law, we must defer to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which, in the context of statutory interpretation, provides that where a general word follows an enumeration of particular things or specific words, the general word has to be construed as applying to things of the same kind as those specifically enumerated[6].
Simply put, where a law provides an enumeration of specific words (like “kind”, “style”, “imitation” in the present case) and they constitute a class and are followed by a general term (like “or the like expression” in the present case), then the general term has to follow the enumeration and be of the same class. The term “inspired by” has an entirely different connotation from the words “kind”, “style”, or “imitation”. It suggests that an external person, event or object sparked creativity or motivated the action. It connotes creative derivation or homage, not equivalence, whereas terms like “kind”, “style”, connote emulation or substitution. Therefore, use of the expression “inspired by” cannot be said to mislead consumers into assuming that the products on which this expression has been used have the same characteristics as those of a GI-tagged product.
b) Second, there is no bar on copying aesthetic style under the Act- The Act does not prohibit copying of the aesthetic or visual style of a GI tagged product. The scheme of the Act envisages a prohibition on using the name or label of the registered GI. Aesthetic appeal or visual style would fall within the domain of the Designs Act, 2000, where protection can be sought in respect of design, look and feel of the product. In the absence of any registration under the Designs Act, 2000, there will be no bar under the Act to use the aesthetic look of a GI tagged product, whether or not the same manufacturing process set out in the GI is followed. Thus, a product, whether falling in the same class or otherwise, can borrow and take inspiration from the aesthetic or visual style of a GI tagged product.
c) Third, subordinate legislation cannot go beyond the scope of the parent (enabling) statute- The Act provides the Central Government power to make rules[7] but these Guidelines are not framed pursuant to the provision; therefore, even if the Guidelines attain finality, they will not have statutory force and will not qualify as subordinate legislation[8]. They will only have an advisory rather than a legislative character. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they do qualify, no subordinate legislation can travel beyond the scope and purview of the parent legislation[9]. The intent of the legislature is to prevent any attempt to create confusion or mislead consumers through the use of terms like “kind” or “style” in conjunction with a registered GI. To the extent the Guidelines attempt to mischaracterize “inspiration” as an act which can create confusion or mislead, they travel beyond the scope of the Act and become ultra vires.
d) Fourth and finally, the Act limits protection granted to a GI to the class under which it has been registered[10], except where use of the GI on dissimilar goods takes unfair advantage of, or dilutes the distinctive character of, the GI. The legislature never prohibited, in a blanket manner, the act of taking inspiration. An act of developing and commercializing a product falling in a different class or classes by taking inspiration from, or paying homage/tribute to, GI-registered goods will not amount to infringement.
Last words
Thus, while the Act needs to be implemented in its letter and spirit to preserve cultural heritage and create recognition of unique products sought to be protected, overzealous interpretation may end up hindering bona fide acts of promoting these cultural heritages.
References:
https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/prada-kolhapuri-chappal-inspiration-2026-footwear-collection-maharashtra-125062800520_1.html ↑
https://www.dpiit.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/11/6f138ae714d2c23e48db92430b44fac4.pdf ↑
Section 22(3). ↑
The Central Government has so far only issued notification dated 1 October 2010 (S.O. 2401(E)) in respect of wines and spirits under section 22(2) of the Act to confer absolute protection on such products. ↑
https://www.dpiit.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/11/6f138ae714d2c23e48db92430b44fac4.pdf ↑
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, 1973 SCR (1) 533 ↑
Section 87. ↑
Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1989 SC 2138. ↑
Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. ICAI, 2024 SCC Online SC 114. ↑
Tea Board, India v. ITC Limited, 2019 (79) PTC 1 (Cal). ↑