Infringement of GI, misleading use and remedies — Intellectual Property Rights I Notes

Infringement of GI, misleading use and remedies

When a soap made in Mumbai is stamped “Mysore Sandalwood”, the buyer is being told a lie about where it came from — and every genuine Mysore producer loses a sale. That is GI infringement: not copying a logo, but stealing a place’s reputation.

What infringes a GI

Infringement — s.22. A registered GI is infringed by a person who, not being an authorised user, uses the GI in a way that:

uses the indication on goods that do not originate in the true place, in a manner that misleads the public as to their geographical origin;
amounts to an act of unfair competition (including passing off); or
uses another GI which, although literally true as to the place of origin, falsely represents that the goods originate in the registered region.

The gist is misleading the public about origin. Additional (higher) protection may be given by notification to specified goods, where even use with expressions like “kind”, “style” or “imitation” is barred (s.22(2), mirroring TRIPS Art. 23 for wines and spirits).

Remedies. The remedies mirror trade-mark law. In a suit (District Court or above), the court may grant:

an injunction (temporary and permanent) to stop the misuse;
at the plaintiff’s option, damages or an account of profits;
delivery up or destruction of the infringing goods and labels; and
criminal action under the offence provisions (ss.38–44 — Topic 6).

GI Act, 1999, s.22(1): “A registered geographical indication is infringed by a person who, not being an authorised user thereof, uses such geographical indication by any means in the designation or presentation of goods that indicates or suggests that such goods originate in a geographical area other than the true place of origin of such goods in a manner which misleads the persons as to the geographical origin of such goods…”

In Simple Terms: A GI is infringed when someone who is not an authorised user puts the name on goods that did not really come from that place, misleading buyers about origin — or otherwise unfairly competes. The remedies are the familiar ones: injunction, damages or account of profits, and delivery-up, plus criminal penalties.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — “Mysore Sandalwood Soap” made in Mumbai

Facts. “Mysore Sandalwood Soap” is a registered GI. A Mumbai-based company sells soap under that name though it is made in Mumbai.

Rule. s.22 — a non-authorised user who applies a registered GI to goods not originating in the true place, misleading the public as to origin, infringes the GI.

Apply. The Mumbai company is not an authorised user; its soap does not originate in Mysore, yet the “Mysore Sandalwood” name tells buyers it does — a clear misrepresentation of geographical origin.

Conclusion. The Mumbai company infringes the GI under s.22; the registered proprietor/authorised users can obtain an injunction, damages/account of profits and delivery-up.

flowchart TD
    INF["GI infringement (s.22)"]:::root
    INF --> A["Non-authorised user misleads as to origin"]:::leaf
    INF --> B["Unfair competition / passing off"]:::leaf
    INF --> C["Falsely represents origin though literally true"]:::leaf
    INF --> REM["Remedies: injunction + damages/account + delivery-up"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;

Case Laws

Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd (2006) — Delhi HC granted an injunction and damages against “Red Scot” whisky misusing the “Scotch” origin.
Tea Board, India v ITC Ltd (2011) — no infringement where the impugned use (a hotel lounge) was for services unrelated to the registered tea goods.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights I topics