GI Infringement and Offences in India

Explainer · Geographical Indications

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

A producer of a Darjeeling-type tea, a handloom or a regional food finds a copy on the market that uses the GI name, and does not know whether to file a civil suit, a police complaint, or both. Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, applying a false GI to goods carries imprisonment of six months to three years plus a fine of Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh (section 39), and suits for infringement go to a district court or higher (section 66). This explainer sets out both tracks in plain words. Last verified October 2026.

01The problem: two tracks, one act

The GI Act gives a registered geographical indication both civil and criminal protection. Many rights holders only know one of the two, so they either wait years for a civil decree or file a police complaint without the right facts.

Registration comes first

Section 20 says no one can sue to stop or recover damages for infringement of an unregistered GI. Passing off remains open, but infringement and the offences in Chapter VIII are built around a registered GI and its authorised users. If the GI is not registered with the Geographical Indications Registry, check that first.

Offences are about false use of the GI

The criminal sections do not punish every copy. They punish falsifying a GI, applying a false GI to goods, selling goods that carry a false GI, and falsely claiming a GI is registered. Knowing which section fits your facts decides whether a complaint will stand.

For a similar civil-plus-criminal structure in another IP right, see copyright criminal remedies under section 63.

02What counts as GI infringement

Under section 22, a registered GI is infringed when someone who is not an authorised user uses it in a way that misleads the public about where the goods come from, or commits unfair competition, including passing off.

• Misleading use: using the GI in the name, label or presentation of goods so the public is misled about the true place of origin or quality.
• Unfair competition and passing off: using the GI in a way that is unfair competition, including passing off.
• Who is protected: the registered proprietor and the authorised users, who hold the exclusive right to use the GI for the registered goods (section 21).

Section 22 has more detail on what is and is not infringement, including some uses that are allowed. Read the section text before you plead.

Infringement is the civil wrong. The Chapter VIII offences are the criminal wrong. One act of false labelling can be both.

03The offences and penalties in Chapter VIII

Section 39 is the core penalty: a person who falsifies a GI or falsely applies a GI to goods faces imprisonment of not less than six months, which may extend to three years, and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000, which may extend to Rs 2 lakh. The court may reduce these for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment.

These figures come from the Act as published on WIPO Lex and India Code. Always check the current text, because amendments can change penalties.

Sections that tell you how the case runs

Other sections in the Act deal with whether the offences are cognizable, which magistrate may try them, and the power of search and seizure. We do not give clause-level detail here until it is checked against the official text.

Offences by companies

Like most Indian statutes, the Act has a provision on offences by companies, which can bring responsible officers into the case.

04Which court: the section 66 forum

Section 66 says a suit for infringement of a registered GI, or relating to a right in a registered GI, cannot be instituted in any court inferior to a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit. In practice, a civil GI suit goes to a district court or a High Court that has original jurisdiction.

Commercial courts and High Court IP Divisions

GI disputes are intellectual property disputes. Depending on the value and the court, they may also be heard by commercial courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, or by a High Court IP Division where one exists. Which one applies depends on the facts and the state. See how IP cases move through district and commercial courts.

Criminal complaints

The section 66 forum rule is for civil suits. A criminal complaint for a section 39 or 40 offence follows the criminal procedure route and is tried by a magistrate, not a civil court. Confirm the exact trial court from the Act and the criminal procedure code in force for your matter.

05Civil relief available

Section 67 lists the relief a court can give in a suit for infringement or passing off: an injunction on such terms as the court thinks fit, and, at the plaintiff’s option, either damages or an account of profits, with or without an order for delivery up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure.

• Injunction: stops the infringer from using the GI. Interim injunctions are often the most valuable step.
• Damages or account of profits: the plaintiff chooses one.
• Delivery up: removes infringing labels and materials from circulation.

Section 68 also says every authorised user must be made a party in certain proceedings unless they are already the applicant, so plan who joins the case. Appeals against registry decisions used to go to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. That board was wound up in 2021 and its work moved to the High Courts.

06Practical steps for a GI holder

1. Confirm registration and authorised-user status. Pull the entry from the Registry on ipindia.gov.in.
2. Collect proof of the false use. Keep samples, labels, invoices and dated photos of the goods.
3. Choose the track. A civil suit for injunction and damages, a criminal complaint for the s.39 or s.40 offence, or both, on advice.
4. Search for earlier cases. Look at how courts have treated similar GI disputes and similar parties.
5. Watch the Registry and the courts. New GI applications, objections and new suits against the same infringer all matter.

For choosing tools to watch conflicting marks on the trademark side, see AI trademark search tools in India.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

A GI infringement matter, civil or criminal, is won or lost in court, so knowing how similar disputes have gone is worth as much as the statute. Claw helps here. It tracks cases, orders and hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, searches 30 crore+ judgments in under 5 seconds, and covers Supreme Court judgments from 1950 and High Court judgments from 1990. So you can find how district courts and High Courts have handled false GI suits and the relief they granted.

Claw does not use customer documents to train AI models. Create a FREE Claw account to research GI infringement cases and track a live suit by party or advocate name. To search the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.

08Sources and further reading

• Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999: WIPO Lex
• Same Act on India Code
• Section 39 text on Indian Kanoon
• GI Registry and IP India: ipindia.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

Last verified October 2026. Statute figures were checked against WIPO Lex. Items we could not confirm are not stated.

09Frequently asked questions