Geographical Indications Quarterly Milestones (July-September 2025)

On 7 July 2025, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that India’s geographical indication (GI) framework permits the coexistence of identical or similar names, provided they are distinguished by clear geographical qualifiers.¹

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s (IPAB) order granting exclusive GI rights in the term “PISCO”, a grape-based spirit, to the Embassy of Peru. It observed that the term “PISCO” has been historically and commercially extensively used by both Chile and Peru in relation to their respective beverages, and that using it without a geographic qualifier would likely mislead consumers and contradict the principle of fair coexistence.

Drawing parallels with the coexistence of “Banglar Rasogolla” and “Odisha Rasagola,” the Court directed that Peru’s GI registration be modified to “Peruvian Pisco,” while Chile’s pending application should be processed as “Chilean Pisco.” This approach, the Court reasoned, ensures both accuracy in trade and transparency for consumers. Similar disputes, such as those concerning Basmati rice, may also be resolved in a similar fashion, by recognising distinct regional associations under a shared name to promote clarity in trade and consumer understanding.

The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief to Peru in its subsequent appeal against this decision. Further arguments in the appeal are now scheduled to be heard on 8 January 2026.²

On 18 July 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against luxury fashion brand Prada, which alleged unauthorised use of the “Kolhapuri Chappal” GI in its footwear designs. The petitioners claimed that Prada’s sandals imitated the traditional handcrafted footwear protected under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Although the petition drew public attention to issues of cultural appropriation and the need to safeguard traditional craftsmanship, the Court held that a PIL is not a permissible mechanism for pursuing alleged violations of GIs. Under India’s GI framework, only the registered proprietors or authorised users of a GI have the legal standing to initiate infringement proceedings. The Court further observed that the questions of deceptive similarity, misrepresentation or infringement in GI matters require factual analysis and evidentiary scrutiny, which cannot be undertaken within the limited procedural scope of a PIL.

While the Court did not examine the merits of the matter – including whether Prada’s footwear could in fact be considered an infringement of the “Kolhapuri Chappal” GI – publicly available information suggests that Prada had not marketed its footwear or described its products as “Kolhapuri Chappals” or claimed any association with the GI region. In any event, the Court clarified that such issues must be raised through the appropriate mechanisms set out under the relevant statutes, rather than through PILs.

The judgment reinforces that GI enforcement in India is a rights-based mechanism, rather than a matter of PIL, and highlights the institutional gap in addressing broader concerns surrounding cultural heritage and traditional knowledge that fall outside the statutory contours of GI law.