BEYOND SECTION 25: TRADEMARK ENCROACHMENT, GENERICIDE, AND THE EFFICACY OF THE INDIAN GI ACT

AUTHOR – PRACHI SENGRIYA* & DR. KAVYA CHANDEL**

* STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL LUCKNOW, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW CAMPUS

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL LUCKNOW, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – PRACHI SENGRIYA & DR. KAVYA CHANDEL, BEYOND SECTION 25: TRADEMARK ENCROACHMENT, GENERICIDE, AND THE EFFICACY OF THE INDIAN GI ACT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (4) OF 2026, PG. 348-360, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the complex intersection and inherent doctrinal conflicts between trademark law and geographical indications (GIs), two intellectual property regimes that both serve as source identifiers but possess fundamentally opposing philosophical underpinnings. While trademarks function as private, highly alienable rights indicating a product’s commercial origin, GIs represent collective, inalienable public rights inherently tethered to a specific geographic region and its unique terroir. The research explores primary conflict scenarios, such as the clash between prior registered trademarks and subsequent GIs, contrasting the strict “first in time, first in right” (FITFIR) principle with the equitable doctrine of coexistence adopted by jurisdictions like India and the European Union. Additionally, it analyzes the statutory mechanisms designed to protect established GIs from bad-faith trademark encroachment and the superseding power of internationally well-known trademarks. 

Furthermore, the study highlights the critical global threats of genericness (“genericide”) and biopiracy, illustrating how the misappropriation of traditional knowledge and structural asymmetries in international IP law uniquely threaten developing nations, using prominent disputes over Basmati rice, Darjeeling tea, and Feta cheese as case studies. Finally, the paper concludes with a critical analysis of Section 25 of the Indian GI Act, arguing that while it establishes a foundational defensive shield against the corporatization of public geographical assets, its socio-economic effectiveness is severely undermined by deeply flawed statutory definitions of genericide, an absence of mandatory post-registration quality governance, and a severely eroded adjudicatory infrastructure following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

Keywords: Geographical Indications, Trademark Law, Genericide, Biopiracy, Indian GI Act.