The experience of India and other countries with neighbouring states in relation to Geographical Indications (GI) presents one of the most complex, sensitive, and evolving areas of intellectual property law because geographical products often transcend political borders, historical divisions, linguistic regions, and administrative boundaries, leading to disputes, cooperation, overlapping claims, cultural tensions, and legal challenges regarding ownership, recognition, commercialization, and international protection of geographically distinctive products, and these experiences demonstrate that Geographical Indications are not merely legal instruments for protecting commercial interests but are also deeply connected with questions of history, culture, regional identity, nationalism, traditional knowledge, trade diplomacy, and economic development.
A Geographical Indication refers to a sign or indication used on goods possessing qualities, characteristics, or reputation attributable to a specific geographical origin, and under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and international agreements such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights administered by the World Trade Organization, GI protection aims to prevent misuse of geographical names while preserving regional identity and economic value associated with traditional products. However, practical experiences involving neighbouring states reveal that determining geographical ownership and exclusive rights over products is often difficult because many products originate from regions historically connected through trade, migration, shared culture, climatic similarities, and pre-colonial territorial arrangements.
The issue becomes even more complicated when political boundaries change over time while traditional production practices continue across multiple regions or countries. One of the most significant examples illustrating India’s experience with neighbouring states in GI disputes is the controversy concerning Basmati Rice. Basmati rice has historically been cultivated in the fertile plains of the Indian subcontinent, particularly in regions located along the foothills of the Himalayas spanning present-day India and Pakistan. The product possesses unique characteristics such as long grain, aroma, texture, and cooking quality attributable to the agro-climatic conditions of this region.
However, after the partition of India in 1947, the geographical area associated with Basmati became divided between two sovereign nations. Both India and Pakistan subsequently claimed historical and geographical association with Basmati rice, leading to disputes concerning ownership, export rights, and international recognition of the GI. The issue became internationally prominent when foreign companies attempted to patent or trademark the term “Basmati,” prompting India to initiate legal and diplomatic efforts to protect the name globally. India argued that Basmati represented a traditional product of the Indian subcontinent and sought exclusive or dominant recognition under international GI systems. Pakistan similarly asserted its rights over Basmati cultivation and exports.
The dispute highlighted the limitations of international GI frameworks in addressing trans-border products and demonstrated how geographical indications may become intertwined with national identity, agricultural economics, and trade diplomacy. Eventually, discussions emerged regarding joint recognition and cooperative approaches because the geographical region associated with Basmati naturally extends across political boundaries. The Basmati case therefore illustrates the difficulties faced by neighbouring states when a product possesses shared historical and geographical roots but exists within different national jurisdictions. Another important example of neighbouring state experiences concerning GI within India itself relates to inter-state disputes over ownership and recognition of traditional products.
Since India is geographically and culturally diverse, several products are produced across multiple states or regions with slight variations in technique, style, or characteristics, leading to disputes regarding which state possesses the stronger claim over the GI. One notable example concerns Rasgulla, a famous sweet associated with both West Bengal and Odisha. The dispute between these neighbouring states became highly emotional and politically sensitive because both states claimed historical origin and cultural association with the product. West Bengal argued that the modern spongy version of Rasgulla originated in Kolkata through the innovation of local confectioners, whereas Odisha claimed that Rasgulla had been traditionally associated with religious rituals at the Jagannath Temple in Puri for centuries.
Both states sought GI registration for their respective versions of the sweet, eventually resulting in separate GI registrations recognizing distinct regional variants. The Rasgulla controversy demonstrates how GIs may become symbols of regional pride and cultural identity, leading to intense competition among neighbouring states for historical recognition and commercial advantage. Another significant inter-state dispute involved Pochampally Ikat and similar textile traditions found across regions of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha. Ikat weaving techniques are practiced in multiple regions with varying local styles and historical influences, raising questions regarding the territorial scope and uniqueness required for GI registration.
Similar issues arise with handloom products, handicrafts, agricultural commodities, and traditional foods that are culturally shared across neighbouring regions. Another important case concerns the dispute over Mysore Pak and related regional sweets associated with Karnataka and neighbouring states where culinary traditions overlap because of migration and historical cultural exchanges. These experiences show that geographical products do not always conform neatly to political boundaries and that regional identities often overlap historically and culturally. Another important aspect of neighbouring state experiences in GI matters relates to the issue of shared ecosystems and cross-border natural resources.
Certain agricultural products derive their uniqueness from climatic and ecological conditions extending beyond administrative borders. Rivers, mountain ranges, forests, and ecological zones frequently span multiple states or countries, making exclusive territorial claims difficult. For example, tea cultivation, spices, medicinal plants, fruits, and traditional agricultural products often grow across adjoining regions possessing similar environmental conditions. In such cases, rigid territorial exclusivity may create disputes and economic inequality among neighbouring communities engaged in similar production practices. The challenge therefore lies in balancing legal protection with geographical and ecological realities.
Another significant issue concerns political influence and regional nationalism in GI disputes. Geographical products often carry emotional and symbolic value because they represent local culture, heritage, and historical pride. Consequently, neighbouring states sometimes use GI registration as a means of asserting cultural dominance or regional superiority. Political leaders and regional organizations may mobilize public sentiment around GI claims, transforming legal disputes into broader identity conflicts. The Rasgulla dispute between Odisha and West Bengal is a clear example of how GI controversies can trigger political debates, media campaigns, and public protests despite the possibility of recognizing multiple regional traditions.
Such experiences reveal that GIs operate not only as intellectual property rights but also as instruments of cultural politics and regional representation. Another important challenge in neighbouring state GI experiences involves lack of harmonized standards and coordination mechanisms. In cases where products are shared across borders or regions, there is often no effective institutional framework for joint management, shared branding, or coordinated protection strategies.
Countries and states may pursue separate registrations and enforcement mechanisms, leading to duplication, inconsistency, and legal uncertainty. International GI systems remain largely territorial in nature, meaning that protection obtained in one jurisdiction does not automatically extend to another. Consequently, neighbouring states must engage in diplomatic negotiations, bilateral agreements, or cooperative arrangements to manage shared geographical products effectively. The absence of clear international guidelines for trans-border GIs creates significant practical difficulties. Another important issue concerns economic inequality between neighbouring states or countries involved in GI disputes.
Larger or economically stronger states may possess greater legal resources, administrative capacity, and international influence for securing GI recognition and enforcing rights globally. Smaller or less developed neighbouring regions may struggle to protect their interests despite historical association with the product. This imbalance can create perceptions of cultural appropriation or economic marginalization. For example, in international GI disputes involving developing countries, the ability to secure recognition abroad often depends upon financial resources, diplomatic engagement, and legal expertise.
Another significant aspect of neighbouring state experiences relates to consumer perception and market differentiation. In certain cases, neighbouring regions produce similar goods with minor differences in quality, technique, or style. GI registration can help create distinct regional identities and premium branding opportunities, but excessive fragmentation may also confuse consumers and dilute market value.
Therefore, policymakers must balance regional recognition with commercial practicality. Another important challenge concerns enforcement against misuse in border regions. Products moving across state or national borders may be difficult to regulate effectively, especially where informal trade networks exist. Counterfeit goods, unauthorized use of geographical names, and blending of products from different regions are common problems in neighbouring areas.
Enforcement agencies may face jurisdictional limitations and coordination difficulties in controlling such practices. The experience with Darjeeling Tea also demonstrates challenges involving neighbouring regions and countries. Darjeeling Tea derives its reputation from the climatic conditions and traditional cultivation practices of the Darjeeling hills in West Bengal. However, tea from neighbouring regions or countries is sometimes blended or marketed using the Darjeeling name, leading to concerns regarding dilution and misuse. The Tea Board of India has undertaken extensive legal efforts to protect Darjeeling Tea internationally, but enforcement remains difficult because of varying foreign legal standards and global market practices.
Another important example of neighbouring state experiences concerns the use of common traditional techniques and cultural practices across regions. Handloom weaving, pottery, wood carving, embroidery, and culinary traditions often evolve through centuries of migration and cultural exchange, making it difficult to attribute exclusive ownership to one state or locality. The GI framework therefore faces challenges in accommodating shared cultural heritage while still maintaining legal distinctiveness.
Another issue concerns the rise of “competitive GI politics” among neighbouring states, where states aggressively pursue GI registrations to gain economic visibility, tourism promotion, and symbolic recognition. This competition may encourage rapid or poorly researched applications without adequate historical or geographical evidence, potentially weakening the credibility of the GI system. The phenomenon of “Vanity GI” is particularly relevant in this context because neighbouring states sometimes seek registration primarily for prestige rather than genuine economic or cultural protection.
Another important aspect involves the possibility of cooperative or joint GI registration systems. Internationally, there are examples where neighbouring countries jointly protect shared products through cooperative arrangements. Such approaches may help reduce conflicts and promote collective economic benefits. In the Indian context, greater cooperation among neighbouring states could help address overlapping claims and support shared marketing strategies for traditional products. Joint recognition mechanisms may be particularly useful where products possess common historical roots or shared ecological conditions. Another challenge concerns balancing cultural diversity with legal exclusivity.
GIs are intended to protect authenticity and regional uniqueness, but overly rigid territorial claims may ignore the fluid and interconnected nature of culture and trade. Neighbouring state experiences therefore highlight the need for flexible legal interpretations capable of accommodating historical realities and shared traditions. Another important issue relates to international trade negotiations and diplomatic relations. GI disputes between neighbouring countries can affect broader trade discussions and political relationships. Agricultural exports, market access, and international branding opportunities may depend heavily upon successful GI recognition.
Countries therefore invest substantial diplomatic and legal resources in protecting geographical products internationally. In conclusion, experiences with neighbouring states in the context of Geographical Indications reveal the complex intersection of intellectual property law, geography, history, culture, politics, economics, and regional identity. Whether involving international disputes such as Basmati Rice between India and Pakistan or inter-state controversies such as Rasgulla between Odisha and West Bengal, these experiences demonstrate that geographical products often transcend political boundaries and cannot always be neatly confined within rigid territorial frameworks.
Challenges such as overlapping claims, cultural nationalism, weak coordination mechanisms, enforcement difficulties, shared ecosystems, economic inequality, and consumer confusion highlight the limitations of existing GI systems in addressing trans-border and inter-regional products. At the same time, these experiences also reveal the immense cultural and economic significance of GIs and their ability to promote regional identity, preserve traditional knowledge, and generate commercial value. The future success of GI protection in relation to neighbouring states will therefore depend upon stronger cooperation, flexible legal frameworks, effective dispute resolution mechanisms, international coordination, and balanced approaches capable of respecting both regional uniqueness and shared cultural heritage.
Leave a Reply