I.    Introduction to Geographical Indications

Geographical Indications (GIs) represent a unique category of intellectual property that protects the collective goodwill of communities whose products derive distinct qualities, reputation, or characteristics from a specific geographical origin. In India, the statutory framework for such protection is embodied in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (the “GI Act”), enacted pursuant to India’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The GI Act grants exclusive rights to registered proprietors and authorized users, enabling them to restrain unauthorized use that misleads consumers or constitutes unfair competition. 

While the framework appears robust on paper, the rise of the digital marketplace has made it harder to enforce these rights in practice, and digital platforms have exposed gaps in monitoring, verifying the true origin of goods, and preventing misuse.

II.    The Digital Transformation of Commerce and Regulatory Disruption

The rapid expansion of e-commerce has transformed the commercial landscape in which GI-protected goods circulate. Unlike traditional brick-and-mortar trade, digital platforms operate across jurisdictions, host third-party sellers, and facilitate transborder imports and exports with minimal oversight. These platforms have allowed rural producers to reach wider consumer bases, increasing visibility and commercial opportunity. However, this expansion simultaneously introduces risks related to authenticity, jurisdictional enforcement, and regulatory fragmentation. Authentication, the core value proposition of a GI, becomes diluted when listings bear protected names but are offered by sellers whose geographic nexus to the designated region is unverifiable. 

Consumers often trust the platform and its branding, creating an illusion of legitimacy, while the underlying supply chain may be disconnected from the protected territory. Even within state boundaries, it is difficult to trace whether a product truly comes from its claimed origin, particularly when it is not properly tagged. This creates a governance challenge because GI rights are based on specific territories, while the borderless nature of digital transactions remain difficult to regulate. Traditional regulatory frameworks are designed for local offline markets and struggle to deal with the global nature of E-commerce. Further, the outdated provisions fail to address digital commerce, consumer protection, data governance, and intellectual property enforcement that can be exploited for misrepresentation.

III.    The Interplay Between GI Law and Regulations in India

The erosion of GIs in e-commerce cannot be understood without examining the broader regulatory framework which extends protection in the digital space. Section 22 of the GI Act defines infringement broadly to include any use that misleads consumers about origin or constitutes unfair competition. However, when a product is listed online by an anonymous seller located outside India, shipped through a third-country intermediary, and delivered directly to the consumer, identifying the infringer becomes a complex jurisdictional exercise. This problem is compounded by intermediary safe harbour protections under the Information Technology Act, 2000, which shields platforms from liability for third-party content so long as they exercise due diligence and remove infringing listings upon notice.

In practice, this reactive approach places the burden of constant monitoring on GI proprietors, many of whom are rural producer associations with limited resources. In this context, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 play an important complementary role. These rules impose obligations on e-commerce entities relating to transparency in product description, display of seller details, grievance redressal, and prohibition of misleading advertisements. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, also defines “spurious goods” as goods falsely claimed to be genuine, which covers in its ambit products that falsely claim a GI origin. Misrepresentation of GI-tagged goods online therefore not only amounts to GI infringement but also constitutes an unfair trade practice and sale of spurious goods under consumer protection law. However, enforcement remains difficult because the system largely depends on disclosure by sellers and reactive takedowns, allowing misleading listings to appear and circulate before corrective action is taken. 

While these rules strengthen accountability, their implementation remains inconsistent, leaving many GI proprietors to navigate fragmented enforcement systems.

IV.    Patterns of Digital Misuse

Recurring instances of digital violations illustrate the systemic nature of GI erosion. 

In the case of Darjeeling Tea, numerous online sellers market tea as “Darjeeling” despite lacking certification from the Tea Board of India, with listings often exceeding the region’s actual production capacity. 

Similarly, Pashmina shawls are frequently counterfeited through synthetic or blended fibres but sold online as authentic Kashmiri Pashmina, misleading consumers and undermining traditional craftsmanship. Banarasi sarees face analogous misuse, with machine-made sarees produced outside Varanasi marketed as handwoven Banarasi products, generating unfair competition for local weavers. Mysore Silk has also been subject to mislabelling, with synthetic sarees falsely described as authentic.

After receiving GI status in 2019, Kolhapuri Chappals were similarly exploited, with mass-produced or synthetic footwear sold under the protected name. 

Basmati rice is often mislabelled online, with long-grain varieties grown outside the boundaries of the Indo-Gangetic plains marketed as Basmati despite failing to meet the 10-marker protocol to distinguish Basmati. It is a high-value, aromatic rice grown in northern India and Pakistan, known for its aroma and cooking qualities, making it vulnerable to adulteration. To safeguard authenticity, DNA-based testing methods using microsatellite markers, including a 10-marker protocol to distinguish Basmati from non-Basmati varieties and a quantitative test to detect adulteration levels has been devised by scientists. A UK-wide market survey using this method revealed significant adulteration. Subsequent advancements led to a stringent eight-microsatellite protocol validated through international trials, and later a two-stage screening test using six InDel markers adapted for lab-on-a-chip platforms, strengthening controls and helping protect the credibility of genuine Basmati in global markets. Moreover, fake seeds are sold in the market under the badge of Basmati leading to faulty produce.. 

These examples highlight that digital counterfeiting is not sporadic but systemic, demonstrating that GI protection is only as effective as its enforceability in a digitally connected marketplace.

V.    Challenges

Online marketplaces are particularly susceptible to fraudulent practices such as fake seller accounts, phishing operations, and identity masking. Fraudulent actors exploit the anonymity of digital platforms to list counterfeit goods and disappear before enforcement action can be initiated. 

Data integrity plays a central role in consumer perception, as manipulated reviews and algorithmic promotion can distort trust and enable counterfeit products to gain prominence. The opacity of supply chains further complicates traceability, as e-commerce often involves multiple intermediaries across jurisdictions, without standardized reporting or mandatory origin verification. 

The borderless nature of e-commerce generates additional jurisdictional complications, with sellers operating abroad targeting domestic consumers. Divergent regulatory standards across countries create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. 

While discussions within the World Trade Organization seek to address digital trade governance, harmonized international enforcement frameworks for GI-protected goods remain elusive, leaving Indian enforcement actions limited in extraterritorial reach.

VI.    Preserving Integrity in the Digital Economy

The erosion of GIs in the digital age reflects a structural governance imbalance. Legal protection remains territorially anchored, while commerce operates in decentralized, algorithm-driven ecosystems. 

Addressing this imbalance requires stronger and more proactive enforcement. E-commerce platforms should verify sellers and require clear proof of the product’s geographical origin before allowing listings. There must also be better coordination between intellectual property authorities and consumer protection authorities to ensure faster action against misuse. GI protection needs to move beyond the current notice-and-takedown system and focus on real-time verification of origin claims in digital markets. Technological tools can support this process. For instance, blockchain can help create transparent supply chains that record and verify origin, QR codes on product labels can allow consumers to easily check authenticity, and AI-based monitoring tools can help detect unauthorized or misleading listings on e-commerce platforms.

Further, discussions have taken place between the government and e-commerce companies to promote authentic GI listings, require proper GI tags and logos, and improve seller training and export compliance. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has also engaged with major e-commerce platforms to encourage the listing and promotion of genuine GI products. These efforts focus on creating standardized practices for listing GI products on online platforms and improving digital literacy among stakeholders so that authentic GI goods can be properly identified and promoted.

Cross-border cooperation, particularly under WTO frameworks aligned with the TRIPS Agreement, is essential to ensure mutual recognition and enforcement of GI rights. Technological solutions such as blockchain-backed traceability and secure digital certification may supplement legal remedies, but they cannot replace coordinated regulatory oversight. 

Ultimately, the digital marketplace exposes a paradox at the heart of GI protection: these rights are designed to anchor products to place, yet modern commerce dislocates them from geography. Without adaptive legal reform and transnational enforcement strategies, the premium associated with geographical authenticity risks being hollowed out by digital replication and anonymous distribution. 

**************************************************************************************************************

AUTHORS

Ms. Smita Bhatia

Ms. Kanika Bansal