TOPIC: INDIAN LAW RELATING TO GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS: A

COMMENT ON TEA BOARD INDIA V. ITC LIMITED

Subject: Intellectual Property Law (IPR)

Submitted in the
FACULTY OF LAW
MAHARISHI ARVIND UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR

Submitted to: Submitted by:

………………. Name- Yashvi Agarwal
Roll No.- 25LMCO109
Faculty of Law, Course- LLM(Business)
Maharishi Arvind University, Jaipur Semester- II(2nd)
Rajasthan-302041 Session: 2025-2026

1|P a g e
 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 3

THE LAW RELATING TO GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS: CONCEPTS

& COMPARISONS ................................................................................................. 4

A. GI: Position Under Indian Law ...................................................................... 5

B. GI: Position Under International Law........................................................... 5

C. GI vis-a-is Other Instruments......................................................................... 5

TEA BOARD INDIA V. ITC LIMITED ................................................................. 6

A. The Background ............................................................................................... 6

B. The Grounds..................................................................................................... 7

C. The Judgment – A Critical Foreground ........................................................ 8

THE CONCEPT OF ‘PASSING-OFF’ ................................................................... 9

A. Foreign Judgment Applicability ................................................................... 10

B. To Tea Or Not To Tea? ................................................................................. 12

CONCLUSION – PAVING PATHWAYS TO CERTAINTY ............................. 14

2|P a g e
 INTRODUCTION
The term ‘Intellectual Property’ refers to those creations of human mind or intellect, which,
although hidden, are important means of accumulating tangible wealth. 1 Intellectual property,
being a form of ‘property’ at its very core, must be understood to be as much susceptible to abuse
and misuse as other conventional kinds of property. The only difference, which arises with regard
to intellectual property vis-à-vis other kinds of property, is the form and manner of such abuse.
This may be witnessed on comparing the pilferage of tangible property to the duplication of
intellectual property.2 However, the latter is much more dangerous, as legitimate access to
information is the backboneof intellectual property law. The moment the legitimacy of such access
ceases to exist, it defeats one of the fundamental functions of intellectual property law, viz.
ensuring complete control of oneself over one’s own ideas, thoughts and plans. This serves as a
pointer towards the fact that intellectual property law, because of its nature, is exposed to various
dangers and risks which can at the most be described as different from the conventional threats,
which have been known to exist to property. However, shifting our attention to the silver lining to
this dark cloud, we must recognize the various new domains where its provisions may be used to
protect, preserve and enhance the rights of specific groups along with the general local culture.
One such domain is “Geographical Indications”, and this is where the instant case comes into
picture.
The case of Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd.3 is a landmark case in the realm of intellectual property
law in India, chiefly because it was the first case to be decided by an Indian Court on the issue of
the infraction of a Geographical Indication4 in India. In this case, the Calcutta High Court in
addition to clearly demarcating the extent to which the proprietor of a GI could exercise control
over it, also paved new paths in creation of new rights by opining and advocating the inclusion of
specific rights within the scope of the provision of the laws relating to GI in India.
The chief aim of this comment is to offer a fair critique of the judgment given by the Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tea Board India v. ITC Limited and analyze its
repercussions with regard to the laws relating to both trademarks as well as GI in India, with special
emphasis on the latter, which happens to still be in its infancy. Part I seeks to enumerate a few

1
DR. B.L. WADEHRA, LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUALPROPERTY xv-xvi (5th ed. 2011).
2 Id. at xvi.
3 GA No.3137 of 2010: CS No.250 of 2010.
4 Hereinafter GI.

3|P a g e
fundamental concepts relating to GI both domestically as well as internationally; with special
regard to drawing a comparison between GI and other IPR instruments. Part II serves to initiate
the entire discussion around the case of Tea Board India v. ITC Limited, while dealing with the
factual and argumentative matrices. Part III analyzes the Judgment while dealing with the various
allied aspects dealt with by the Court like passing-off, cross-claims etc. Finally, the conclusion
highlights the need for strict GI-centric laws in India, as well as the promise and potential, which
the instant decision holds for the future of GI in India in specific, and of Intellectual Property Law
in general.

THE LAW RELATING TO GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS:

CONCEPTS & COMPARISONS
The principal statute governing GI in India is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration
and Protection) Act, 1999.5 The raison d’etre of such a law may be understood at two levels –
general and specific. On a general level, such an Act was needed to enhance the economic
prosperity of the producers as well as the health and safety of the consumers of those goods, which
bore an Indian GI and were being showcased in the international trade scene as top-quality
products.6 On a specific level, however, such a need was felt in order to fulfill the obligations
which existed under Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 7 on
importers of a good which, though a GI in its country of origin, was not protected under any law
in that country.8 This in turn put a reverse burden on India which was obliged under the said
Agreement to protect the GI as many imported goods were protected by specific statutes 9 in their
respective countries or origin; where such statutes are binding on all parties transacting in the
protected product and are enforceable in any Court10 in a member State. All these factors ultimately
culminated in the enactment of the aforesaid GI law.

5 Hereinafter GI Act.
6
WADEHRA, supra note 1.
7 Hereinafter TRIPS
8 Uruguay Round Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art. 24(9)(3), January 1,

1995.
9 Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92, Jul. 14 1992.
10 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Asda Stores Ltd, (2001) UKHL 7 (H.L.).

4|P a g e
A. GI: Position Under Indian Law
The GI Act is a unique legislation, as it completely focuses on GI, a category of goods,
which had not been dealt with by any other legislation till the GI Act was brought into
effect. Section 2(e) of the GI Act defines a ‘Geographical Indication’. It states, inter alia,
that such an indication aids in identifying agricultural, natural or manufactured goods as
where such goods’ quality, finesse or reputation can be attributed to its geographical origin.
Further, it specifies that in case of manufactured goods, one or more activities out of the
preparation, processing or production or such goods must occur in the geographical
territory so specified.

B. GI: Position Under International Law

On an international level, a GI may be used for either appealing to a particular people or
taste by connecting the origin of the goods in question to a particular place where such taste
may reasonably be connected11, or even for denoting that a particular product belongs to a
particular trader.12 Hence, the scope of GI under international law is wider than the scope
attached to it under the GI Act in India. The rationale behind granting a GI is basically to
create a global brand recognizable by its quality. This is because such brands can only
result from the preservation of the distinctiveness of the concerned geographical entity.

C. GI vis-a-is Other Instruments

The case of Tea Board India v. ITC Ltd. makes valuable contributions towards developing
an understanding of the consequences, which entail on dilution and infringement of GI. This
is relevant in the context of the legal provisions relating to infraction upon trade and related
marks, which are both better defined (on account of there being proper precedents for the
same) as well as more stringent. While the main objective of a GI is to denote the place
from where a particular good originates and to which place the qualitative characteristics of
such goods may be attributed, a trademark is basically used by an enterprise in relation to
goods and services so as to distinguish them from the others.13 Hence, the scope of a GI is
restricted when compared to that of a trademark. Further, a GI may also be distinguished
from a Certification Trademark; which again is applicable to both goods and services. The

11 DAVID I. BAINBRIDGE, INTELLECTUALPROPERTY 650 (5th Ed. 2002).

12
Montgomery v. Thompson, (1891) AC 217 (H.L.) (Per LORD HANNEN, J.)
13 WADEHRA, supra note 1.

5|P a g e
 provisions relating to Certification Trademarks allow for right of action where the
certification trademark has been used for a good and the impugned trademark relates to a
service and vice-versa. Thus, there is a scope for cross-category claims under ‘certification
trademark’, but not so under GI and it is this fallacy, which has been effectively dealt with
by the Court in the following case.

TEA BOARD INDIA V. ITC LIMITED

A. The Background

The Plaintiff in this case was a statutory body14 named Tea Board India.15 The Board was the
registered proprietor of two different certification trademarks for tea; which fall under Class
30.16 The first of the two ‘certification trademarks’ was a word mark17 for “Darjeeling”18 and
the second was a device mark19 for an image of a lady holding two tea-leaves along with a
bud in her left hand along with the word “Darjeeling” inscribed to the left of the image. 20 It
may be noted that the aforementioned marks had also been separately registered by the
plaintiff in 2003 under the GI Act as a GI.21 The Board sued ITC Ltd., a premier Indian
industrial house that operates many premier hotels across the country, for having named a
portion of its famous luxury hotel in Calcutta, the ITC Sonar Hotel as “The Darjeeling
Lounge”.
Ironically, the Board came to know of the alleged infringement when ITC Ltd. applied for a
trademark on the name “Darjeeling Lounge” in Class 41 when the said application was
advertised in the Trademarks Journal.22 On making enquiries, the Board came to know that
the impugned Lounge was operating for a practical, commercial purpose i.e. to provide

14
Formed under Section 4 falling under Chapter II of the Tea Act, 1953 as an autonomous and non-profitmaking
enterprise.
15 Hereinafter the Board
16 Trademarks in India are divided into 45 classes; with Classes 1 -34 relating to goods (divided according to industry

/ area of usage) and Classes 34-45 dealing with services (divided on the basis of industry/ vocation).
17 A standardized textual or graphical representation of an entity; used for branding, identification or immediate

recall of a product.
18 Trademark No. 831599.
19 A standardized trademark relating to a particular brand and including text or images synonymous with a particular

brand; thereby aiding that particular brand maintain its goodwill or reputation in the market. See I&R Morley v.
Mackey Logan Caldwell Ltd, (1921) NZLR 1001.
20 Trademark No. 532240.
21 The word and the logo were assigned GI Nos. 1 and 2 respectively; being the first GI to be applied for in India.
22 Tea Board India, supra note 3, at 5, ¶ 9.

6|P a g e
 customers with food, beverages and other edible items.23 It was, in terms of both the nature
as well as conduct of its business, intrinsically a restaurant.
The Board’s chief contention was that the usage of the word “Darjeeling”, which was
protected by a trademark by ITC Ltd. was nothing short of an infraction upon its GI mark. 24
The Board also contended that it was a direct violation of the certification trademark
registered by the Board which amounted to an act of ‘passing-off’25 with respect to unfair
and unwarranted competition leading to an effective dilution of the very brand value attained
by Darjeeling Tea because of its status as a GI.
B. The Grounds
The Board contended that the usage of the word “Darjeeling” in the nomenclature of a
particular section of a hotel being run by ITC Ltd. was done with the sole intent of cashing
in upon the brand value, which was enjoyed by Darjeeling Tea, which in the first place was
registered under the sole proprietorship of the Board. The Board claimed that apart from
openly infringing upon the Board’s GI and Certification Marks; ITC Ltd. had also indulged
in “passing-off” of the aforementioned marks.26 As a final contention, the Board also claimed
that naming their lounge as “The Darjeeling Lounge” which carried out commercial
activities; amounted to an action of ‘dilution’ of their brand, viz. Darjeeling Tea.
On the other hand, ITC Ltd. contended that the provisions of the GI Act could only be applied
to goods, whereas the Darjeeling Lounge, which was at the centre of the entire controversy,
was providing mere services.27 On similar lines, ITC Ltd. also made a contention about the
non-applicability of the provisions, which protect Certification Trademarks of a good to
usage of the same mark in relation to any service. The third contention of the Defendants was
with respect to whether the GI Act had retrospective effect, for they also claimed exemption
on the ground that the hotel in dispute had been operative since 2003, before the GI Act came
into force.28

23
Id. at 6, ¶ 10.
24
Id. at 9, ¶ 3.
25 Id. at 9, ¶ 3.
26 Id. at 12, ¶ 7.
27 Id. at 13, ¶ 8.
28 The GI Act came into force on 15th September 2003, whereas the ITC Sonar Hotel commenced operations from

December 31st 2002.

7|P a g e
 In addition to the above, a major contention on which the Defendants heavily relied was the
issue of the suit being time-barred, as the lounge in question had been within the frame of
awareness of the Plaintiff Board since 2005, yet they had filed a suit five years later, i.e. in
2010.29 The remaining two contentions of ITC Ltd. were based on questions of fact rather
than of law, for they claimed that the lounge only catered to “high-end” and “exclusive”
customers30 and that it had been named “The Darjeeling Lounge” to give their customers a
glance of the culinary and cultural finesse of Bengal.31
C. The Judgment – A Critical Foreground
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in its Judgment dated 24th August 2011,
delivered by Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, upheld the decision passed by a single Judge of
the same Court on April 20th, 2011. The Court refused to grant an Interlocutory Injunction
to Tea Board India against the use of the word “Darjeeling” for the lounge run by the
defendants, i.e., ITC Ltd. It is submitted that the decision of the Division Bench is sound in
fact as well as in law, and may be heralded as a landmark judgment since it was the first such
decision regarding a GI in India which has lucidly yet definitively settled numerous questions
that arose in the course of the enforcement of the GI Act in India.
It is further submitted that the Court has also determined how far the proprietor(s) of a
‘registered certification trademark’ may exercise absolute control over the products so
protected. Thus, the decision of the Division Bench goes a long way in removing certain
ambiguities, which existed with respect to GI and other intellectual property instruments.
The Bench deliberated extensively on variousaspects of the law, the most prominent amongst
them being the tort of ‘passing-off’, which ITC Ltd. was alleged to have been indulging in.
With ‘passing-off’ being the central argument on the side of the Board, the Bench made use
of the judgment to clearly define the scope and nature of activities which would constitute
the tort of ‘passing-off’ as well as its interplay with trademark dilution per se. Further, the
Bench also considered the possibility of foreign decisions (in which the Board was itself a
party) being applied to the present case. The final major point of law, which the Bench

29
Tea Board India, supra note 3, at 13, ¶ 8
30 Tea Board India v. ITC Limited (Preliminary Judgment dated 20.04.2011) accessible at: http://
[Link]/[Link] (Last accessed 17.04.2022), at 14.
31 Id. at 12, ¶ 15.

8|P a g e
 addressed, was the degree of control, which the proprietor of a GI could exercise by virtue of
registration.

THE CONCEPT OF ‘PASSING-OFF’

The chief contention of the Board was that ITC Ltd. was indulging in ‘passing off ’ amounting to
unfair competition by naming their lounge as “the Darjeeling Lounge which gave the public the
wrong impression that the tea served at the lounge was the same tea grown under the aegis of the
Board in Darjeeling.32 The scope of ‘passing-off ’ under intellectual property law is quite wide and
it can protect unregistered business names, unregistered trademarks, advertising or anything in
general which is distinctive of the claimant’s goods, services or business as a whole. 33 There is a
fundamental difference between trademark infringements and passing off; as while the former
requires some actual or distinct use of the said mark; the latter requires just an implied use or
mention of a trade name, i.e. the latter does not require and expressly evident usage of the protected
entity.34 It can thus be safely stated that the concept of passing off is much more volatile in nature
than trademark infringements. Cases like Harrods Ltd. v. R. Harrod Ltd.35 where the Defendant
named his money-lending company to “pass off” his company as having relations with the Plaintiff
(which was a very respected banking company and was prohibited from money-lending because
of its Articles of Association) go a long way in explaining that a mere implication of undue
advantage being taken is enough to attract the provisions of the concept of “passing off”.
However, in respect of this case, it is important to note that the trademarks, which were granted to
the Board, were for only one substance i.e., tea. The Lounge in question served food, beverages
and a host of other items of which tea was only a unitary item. Further, the Court, while considering
the fact that the contention of the Board was based on the concept of ‘passing off ’, went on to
state that the basic objective behind a Defendant indulging in passing off is to portray its own
goods as those of the Plaintiff.36 The Court averred, and rightly so, that the facts of the case help
us to understand clearly the fact that the Board was just a statutory body, and was not in any manner
associated with the direct trade of tea, or with providing food, beverages or hospitality to people. 37

32
Tea Board India, supra note 24, at 12, ¶ 15.
33
WADEHRA, supra note 1.
34 Id. at 651.
35 (1924) 41 RPC 74.
36 Tea Board India, supra note 3, at 18, ¶ 24.
37 Id. at 18, ¶ 24.

9|P a g e
These activities were indulged in by the Defendant, i.e. ITC Ltd. Hence, no prima facie case of
passing off one’s goods as another’s could be made out since both the parties engaged in totally
different modes of business. The point above may also be compared to the Harrods Ltd. case
wherein even though the two companies engaged in two evidently different activities, yet they
formed a part of the same industry i.e., provision of financial services.
It was a taut observation by the Court that the registration of a ‘certification trademark’ was chiefly
instrumental for the Board in protection of its own authority to undertake the certification of a
beverage38 i.e., tea, that too with respect to it having been produced in Darjeeling. Hence, it is a
correct averment of the Court that the registration of the ‘certification trademark’ in essence
protects the Board’s authority of certification of tea and relief can be sought under such a
‘certification trademark’ and only if another body attempts to usurp this authority of the Board to
certify.39 Since no such attempt was made by ITC Ltd., which was quite content running hotels
across India, there is in essence no scope for the application of the concept of ‘passing off ’ against
ITC Ltd. in this case.
It needs to be seen that this was not the first instance where the Board was involved in a legal
dispute over improper GI usage. It had engaged in litigation earlier as well to protect the Darjeeling
label, that too on foreign shores. The Bench considered as to whether the result of those cases was
to be allowed to affect the present one. As such decisions involved the commercial usage of the
very term in dispute, viz. “Darjeeling”, a scrutiny of the same by the Bench was not just logical,
but necessary.

A. Foreign Judgment Applicability

The Counsel for the Board, in an effort to further fortify his arguments, cited two foreign
case-laws, both involving Tea Board India, wherein the Board had gone ahead and
prevented other business entities from using the word ‘Darjeeling’ in their respective
products.40 In the first case, viz. Tea Board India v. Jean-Luc Dusong41, the Paris Court of
Appeal held that the registration by a French trader of a trademark name bearing the word

38
Id. at 18, ¶ 24.
39 Id. at 18, ¶ 24.
40 Id. at 18, ¶ 23.
41 Case No. 05/20050 (Paris Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2006).

10 | P a g e
 ‘Darjeeling’ along with the image of a teapot was null.42 In the second case, viz. Tea Board
of India v. Republic of Tea, Inc.43, the United States Trademark Trial & Appeal Board held
that a trademark application44 for the name “Darjeeling Nouveau” for a kind of tea served
was void. The reason being that there was bound to be a lot of confusion in the minds of the
general public, since both the products, however repackaged, were in actual fact the same
commodity, i.e., tea.
The Counsel for the Board iterated that the abovementioned decisions would provide ample
precedent to the Court for it to analyse the extent of control that Tea Board India had over
the Darjeeling Tea brand. The Court’s refusal to take into consideration the Judgments
mentioned above, for the simple reason that such cases by virtue of not having got a chance
to deal with the legislations dealing with Trademarks and GI in India 45 could not be held to
be valid precedents, is thus completely justified – both legally as well as logically.
The matter at hand fell within the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on one hand and
the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 on the other
(which were the governing laws for determination of disputes relating to trademarks and GI
respectively in India). In this connection the Court laid proper emphasis on the Statement
of Objects and Reasons which precedes the provisions of the GI Act. 46 The final sentence
of the Statement reads as under:
… in view of the above circumstances, it is considered necessary to have a
comprehensive legislation for registration and for providing adequate protection
for geographical indications. Hence the Bill.
It is crucial for us to look at the word “comprehensive” in relation to the Act. By using such
a term, the Statement effectively states that the GI Act is an all-pervasive legislation, the
provisions of which cover each and every aspect of GI in India. In the instant case, both the
parties carry on their respective businesses in India and hence, the Court was right in
rejecting the Counsel’s claim for consideration of decisions which were passed by foreign

42
Justin Hughes & Diane Artal, Translation of The Tea Board v. Dusong - Court of Appeals of Paris, 05/20050,
Decision of November 22 2006, 28 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 435 (2010).
43 80 USPQ2D1881 (TTAB 2006).
44 Application Serial No. 75748952, filed on July 13, 1999.
45 Tea Board India, supra note 3, at 18, ¶ 23.
46 Id. at 19, ¶ 25.

11 | P a g e
 Courts; as the foreign courts had not passed the Judgments according to the two Acts under
the provisions of which the current matter came.
It would augur well to observe that in both the Jean-Luc Dusong and well as Republic of
Tea cases, the impugned registration of trademarks was always sought only for the same
product; which had been registered under the proprietorship of the Board. This cannot be
said about the instant case, where ITC Ltd. was catering to a few customers by providing
food, beverages and other refreshments, of which tea was just one of the items. It is
submitted that this observation is essential in understanding the level of control over the
Darjeeling GI, which was vested with the Board, as the same was the third major point of
law, which was deliberated upon and settled by the Board.

B. To Tea Or Not To Tea?

A fundamental aspect of the Calcutta High Court’s decision was its disambiguation of
exactly how far the right of the Board could exist over the object protected, Darjeeling Tea. 47
At this juncture, it would do us good to go through the definition of ‘Certification
Trademark’ as given under Section 2(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It runs as follows:
‘Certification trade mark’ means a mark capable of distinguishing the goods or
service in connection with which it is used in the course of trade which are certified
by the proprietor of the mark in respect of origin, material, mode of manufacture
of goods or performance of service not so certified and registrable as such under
Chapter IX in respect of those goods or service in the name, as proprietor of the
certification trade mark, of that person.
The phrases “in connection with which it is used” and “in respect of those good or services
in the name” signify that the provisions relating to certification trademarks apply only to
those goods, which have been registered under such trademarks. Hence, it becomes clear
that there was absolutely no infringement on the registered certification trademark for tea
as Tea Board India possessed the certification trademark for Darjeeling Tea only with
respect to certifying the tea grown in Darjeeling48 and not with respect to set-ups operating
within the scope of the Hotel industry.

47
Id. at 22, ¶ 27.
48
Id. at 22, ¶ 28

12 | P a g e
 It must further be noted that Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states that the rights
conferred by a trademark are given to the registered only in relation to the goods and
services for which the trademark is sought. Hence, only the rights with respect to the tea
produced in Darjeeling vest safely with the Board. The Board essentially has no rights
against use of the term Darjeeling in connection with something other than tea, such as a
hotel lounge in this case.49 Also, it is clear in the light of the objective of the GI Act,50 that
by attempting to stop the usage of the word ‘Darjeeling’ (a geographic name), that too in a
field over which the Board had no jurisdiction, the Board was in effect defeating the very
purpose of the GI Act.51 This is because the GI Act was enacted to give better protection
to GI, not concentrate all usage of the same in the hands of a single entity. Hence, the
provisions of the GI Act were also correctly held by the Court to be inapplicable in this
case.
A few other aspects of the case were also decided with optimumattention paid by the Court.
A path-breaking point made by the Court was that despite the GI Act being applicable
solely to goods, cross-category complaints (i.e., complaints protected goods & impugned
services and vice versa) could be initiated under Sections 22(1) (b) and 20 (2) of the Act.
The Act allowed prosecution against the use of any GI in a manner, which leads to unfair
competition including passing off.52 Further, it also rejected the plea of ITC Ltd. that the
suit was time-barred53; as in spite of the suit being filed in 2010, the Board had been
communicating in the form of letters to ITC Ltd., protesting communications before the
Trademark Registry etc. Lastly, the Court left the question of the GI Act having
retrospective effect in consequence of it holding that the Board could not take the aid of
provisions of the GI Act.

49
Id. at 22, ¶ 27.
50
See Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“An Act to provide for
registration and better protection of geographical indications related to goods”).
51 Tea Board India, supra note 3, at 22, ¶ 27.
52 See Explanations 1 & 2, Section 22 (1) (b), GI Act.
53Tea Board India, supra note 30, at 12, ¶ 7.

13 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION – PAVING PATHWAYS TO CERTAINTY
Scholarly opinion suggests54 that the protection of Geographical Indication (GI) has emerged as
one of the most contentious IPR issues in the realm of the TRIPS Agreement. This statement stems
from the fact that GIs, in almost all cases, embody within themselves a certain uniqueness of
nature, be it through taste, aroma, texture etc. This uniqueness makes every GI suscep tible to
external harm and infraction. Hence, a functional legal system for the protection of GI is vital for
the true realization of the commercial promise embodied within them. The landmark decision in
Tea Board India v. ITC Limited is thus the proverbial stone, which kills not two, but many birds.
These ‘birds’ are the indefiniteness of the legal status of a GI, ambiguity relating to the relationship
between trademark law and law related to GI, limitations relating to the scope of rights within the
GI Act (which have been dealt with the advocacy of cross-category rights) and finally, the exercise
of excessive control over a geographical entity’s identity. All these measures have extensively
contributed to the preservation of the heart and soul of the GI Act.
This definitely paves ways for certainty regarding the inter-connection between trademark laws
and laws relating to GIs in India. It has carved out a definitive understanding in relation to the
extent to which control may be exercised by the proprietor in relation to his/her certification
trademark. The decision has also opened a plethora of opportunities for future litigants by
emancipating a ray of hope for the inclusion of cross-category rights within the GI Act. Lastly, the
Calcutta High Court has protected the raison d’etre of the GI Act, viz. the proper registration as
well as protection of GI in India by rejecting the plea of the Board, which if accepted would have
created a dubious precedent with regard to the exercise of absolute control by the Board over the
geographical name- “Darjeeling”.

54Sudhir Ravindran & Arya Matthew, The Protection of Geographical Indications in India – A Case Study on
Darjeeling Tea, INTERNATIONALPROPERTY RIGHTS INDEX – 2009 REPORT, Property Rights Alliance
(2009).

14 | P a g e