ABSTRACT
Geographical Indications (GIs) represent a critical intersection of intellectual property law, cultural heritage, and economic development. This article offers a comparative legal and policy analysis of GI protection in India and Brazil, two jurisdictions with rich artisanal traditions and divergent regulatory frameworks. As of 2025, India has registered over 697 GIs, while Brazil has recognized only 119, a disparity that invites scrutiny of legislative scope, institutional capacity, and producer engagement.
India’s GI regime is governed by a dedicated statute, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which restricts protection to goods and requires collective applications. Brazil, by contrast, embeds GI protection within its Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996), recognizing both goods and services and permitting individual applicants. The article examines these definitional and procedural differences, including registration formalities, evidentiary standards, and duration of protection.
Through case studies, such as Coimbatore Wet Grinders in India and Porto Digital in Brazil, the article explores how GIs contribute to regional identity and market value. It also evaluates enforcement mechanisms, highlighting India’s stronger penal provisions and Brazil’s administrative approach. Challenges such as limited awareness, weak inspection regimes, and the absence of a sui generis GI law in Brazil are critically assessed.
The article concludes with policy recommendations aimed at strengthening legal clarity, enhancing institutional support, and promoting international harmonization. By situating India and Brazil within the global GI discourse, it contributes to a deeper understanding of how legal systems can balance local authenticity with global competitiveness.
INTRODUCTION
Geographical Indications (GIs) have evolved into a strategic legal instrument at the intersection of intellectual property, trade policy, and cultural preservation. Their capacity to confer market exclusivity based on origin-linked qualities makes them particularly valuable for developing economies seeking to valorize traditional knowledge and regional specialities. Yet, the legal architecture underpinning GI protection varies significantly across jurisdictions, influencing not only the scope of rights but also the accessibility and effectiveness of enforcement.
India and Brazil offer instructive contrasts. India’s GI regime is governed by a dedicated statute that reflects a structured, goods-only approach, emphasizing collective ownership and procedural formalism. Brazil, by contrast, embeds GI protection within its broader industrial property framework, embracing a more flexible model that includes services and permits individual applications. These divergences are not merely technical—they reflect deeper normative choices about the role of intellectual property in shaping economic identity and legal access.
This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the two systems, focusing on definitional scope, registration procedures, enforcement mechanisms, and policy outcomes. It argues that while India’s model offers clarity and institutional depth, Brazil’s approach reflects a broader conceptual ambition that remains underdeveloped in practice. By examining how legal design interacts with administrative capacity and producer engagement, the study highlights the need for more integrated, responsive, and inclusive GI governance. In doing so, it contributes to ongoing debates about the future of origin-based rights in a globalized legal order.
TRIPS agreement plays an important role by setting down the foundation for The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act)in India and The Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279) in Brazil.The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 in India and Normative Instruction No. 095/2018 in Brazil lays down the procedures, format and other important information. The National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) is the body responsible for registering and monitoring GIs in Brazil and Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM) is responsible for administering GI in India.
Under article 22‘1. Geographical indications are, for the purposes of this Agreement, indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
- In respect of geographical indications, Members shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent:
(a) the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good;
(b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967).
The definition of theGeographical indicationis given under section 2(e) of GI act,on the other handit is evident to see that the article 176 of Law No. 9,279states that ‘geographical indication is constituted by an indication of source or an appellation of origin’, and it does not define geographical indication. Article 177 defines indication of source and 178 defines an appellation of origin. It is important to know that in India, GI protection can only be given to goods and not toservices,but the Brazilian act explicitly includes goods and services. And even individuals can get protection for GI in Brazil (Article 5 Normative Instruction No. 095/2018) unlike in India, where only association or group of persons can apply for protection.
Section 2(e) of GI act–Defines geographical indication, in relation to goods, means an indication which identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and in case where such goods are manufactured goods one of the activities of either the production or of processing or preparation of the goods concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality, as the case may be.
Article 177 of Law No. 9,279 – An indication of source is considered to be the geographical name of a country, city, region or locality of its territory, which has become known as a centre of extraction, production or manufacture of a determined product or for providing a determined service.
Article 178 of Law No. 9,279 – An appellation of origin is considered to be the geographical name of a country, city, region or locality of its territory, which designates a product or service, the qualities or characteristics of which are exclusively or essentially due to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors.