The Draft Guidelines on GI and GI Logo Usage promise greater clarity and standardisation, yet they introduce changes that could fundamentally weaken GI protection in India. Dr. Anson CJ explains that by broadening who can use GI names and logos, the draft shifts power away from actual producers and towards intermediaries. Noting the issues with the guidelines, he explains the need for a Producer-First Framework and suggests recommendations to re-centre the guidelines around the Actual GI Producer. Dr. Anson is an Assistant Professor at Madras Christian College, Chennai. His previous posts can be accessed here. [Long post ahead]
Draft GI Logo Guidelines Risk Diluting Producer Rights: A Critical Analysis
By Dr. Anson C J
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has released the Draft Guidelines for the Use of Geographical Indications (GI) and the GI Logo (18th November 2025), available publicly here. At first glance, the Draft Guidelines seem to strengthen and standardize GI usage, but a closer look reveals provisions that could significantly weaken the core of Geographical Indications. The purpose of the GI Act has always been producer-focused: the law safeguards a collective reputation rooted in unique local skills, environmental factors, and traditional practices of the actual producers within the GI region. However, Section 1.1 of the Draft Guidelines introduces a broad category of eligible users by stating that not only Authorized Users (AUs), but also “any person who has assent of the AU or procures goods directly or indirectly from the AU, including dealers, packagers, and intermediaries,” may use the GI registered name and official GI logo. This wide-open approach is highly problematic because it effectively treats intermediaries—retailers, exporters, packagers, and middlemen—equally with the actual producers who embody the cultural, artisanal, and agricultural heritage that GIs are intended to protect.
Although the guidelines claim to “strengthen the GI ecosystem” and “support genuine producers”, a careful reading indicates a structural shift that may severely dilute the essence of GI protection. This extension of eligible users fundamentally alters the producer-centric architecture envisioned by the GI Act, especially in a country where GIs overwhelmingly originate from small, rural, tribal, artisanal, and agricultural communities whose livelihoods depend on authenticity-based market advantages.
This approach treats intermediaries as functionally equivalent to actual GI producers, even though intermediaries play no role in shaping the cultural identity, production methods, geographical specificity, or traditional skills that make a GI unique.
This broad permissibility radically undermines the purpose of GIs. A Geographical Indication is not a supply-chain badge; it is a certification of origin, culture, skill, and geography. The Draft Guidelines shift the emphasis away from Actual GI Producers (AGPs) and toward market intermediaries who may profit from GI branding without contributing to its authenticity.
This dilution could have serious consequences for Actual GI Producers (AGPs). When large corporations, exporters, or commercial packaging companies are regarded the same as local artisans and farming communities, the balance of power and financial control shifts away from those who genuinely create the GI product. Major companies with greater market reach, distribution control, and capital resources could dominate branding and pricing decisions, leaving original producers with little bargaining power and lower income, while intermediaries reap disproportionate profits. Experience from sectors like handloom textiles, tea, and spices already shows how middlemen often earn far more than the producers who sustain the craft.
For example, if a major corporation starts using the GI logo for a textile or agricultural product simply by obtaining goods through intermediaries, it could sell the product at higher prices while paying the original artisans minimal rates, ultimately undermining the social and economic empowerment goals of the GI regime. Over time, this could even force small producers out of the market entirely.
Problem Analysis: How Current Text Dilutes GI Essence
The GI system is designed to preserve the relationship between a product’s characteristics and its geographical origin. This link requires that the producer—the person or collective whose skill and environment shape the product—remain at the centre. However, phrases in the guidelines such as “procures the goods directly or indirectly… including dealers, packagers, intermediaries” open the door to broad downstream use of the GI logo on goods that may have been blended, reprocessed, or repackaged away from the GI area.
This raises several risks:
- Loss of traceability for production methods and quality controls,
- Commercial capture by intermediaries who build brand equity without benefiting producers,
- Consumers are being misled by GI-branded goods that no longer reflect AGP authenticity,
- Erosion of producer reputation and difficulty enforcing misuse.
The guidelines must prevent the misuse of prior trademarks (registered before GI registration) to undermine the producer-centric nature of GIs.
A Fundamental Contradiction: Permitting Intermediaries While Demanding Authenticity
Sections 1.1 and 1.1.1 of the Guidelines cannot coherently coexist. While Section 1.1 allows intermediaries to use the GI logo, Section 1.1.1 stipulates that GI-labelled goods must:
- Originate within the GI region,
- Follow traditional production methods,
- Match the registered quality standards,
- Preserve the reputation tied to geographical origin.
Intermediaries cannot meet these substantive conditions, because they do not produce anything. Thus, the guidelines contradict their own authenticity mandate. The result is a conceptually confused regulatory framework where intermediaries may be empowered to use the GI logo, even though their involvement may have no relation to traditional production, quality control, or cultural identity.
While Sections 1.1 and 1.1.1 appear complementary at a procedural level—where Section 1.1 allows intermediaries to apply the GI tag and Section 1.1.1 clarifies the product requirements—the combination of the two provisions creates a substantive conceptual ambiguity. Section 1.1.1 demands that products bearing the GI name and logo must originate within the registered region and must comply with traditional production methods and quality standards. However, intermediaries listed in Section 1.1—dealers, packagers, exporters, and supply-chain middlemen—do not themselves participate in production, cannot verify traditional method compliance, nor can they be held responsible for maintaining cultural authenticity or quality parameters. This creates confusion about accountability: Who is legally responsible for ensuring authenticity once intermediaries are empowered to use the GI logo? If intermediaries are given equal rights to apply the GI mark, but are structurally incapable of meeting or enforcing the substantive requirements of 1.1.1, the regulatory framework risks shifting control away from actual producers and weakening the authenticity safeguards that GIs are intended to protect.
Risk of Exploitation and Value Capture: The Producer at the Bottom of the Chain
In many GI systems across India, AUs themselves include exporters, traders, and commercial entities—not the artisans or farmers who originate the product. Granting logo rights to “any person” with AU assent entrenches existing power asymmetries. The actual GI-producing communities—who bear the historical, geographical, and cultural legacy—may be sidelined in favour of commercial actors who reap most of the value.
Intermediaries may present products using the GI logo while paying producers minimal prices. Meanwhile, consumers perceive these items as “authentic GI goods” simply because the logo appears. In effect, this creates a perfect environment for value extraction without value contribution—where the middlemen profit, but the producers who shape the craft, maintain tradition and originate the work receive little. This dynamic undermines the social and cultural objectives of GI protection because the actual artisans lose both recognition and economic benefit. For instance, in the case of Madhubani painting in Bihar: the GI-tag was applied in 2005, but local artists continue to be stripped of royalties and the trade has been dominated by middlemen who contribute little to the preservation of the traditional art form. As a result, what should be a mechanism to empower producers and protect cultural heritage becomes a vehicle for commercial intermediaries to exploit the brand-value of the GI without fostering its roots.
Dilution of Identity: Turning the GI Logo into a Generic Marketing Symbol
If retailers, wholesalers, packagers, exporters, and other intermediaries are all permitted to use the same GI logo, consumers will no longer be able to distinguish products genuinely made by GI artisans from products merely handled or repackaged by commercial middlemen. In such a scenario, the GI logo risks losing its integrity and becoming a superficial marketing symbol rather than a trusted certification of geographical origin, traditional craftsmanship, and cultural authenticity.
The danger of such dilution is especially acute in India, where GI producers often work in informal economies, lack bargaining power, and rely on the GI system to protect their heritage.
Need for a Producer-First Framework: Some Recommendations
We urge the Registry to re-centre the guidelines around the Actual GI Producer (AGP) and adopt the following four corrective interventions:
- Redefine and prioritise the Actual GI Producer (AGP) as the primary rights-holder whose practices and identity embody the GI.
- Restrict logo use by intermediaries and introduce a distinct Intermediary Mark / Packed-By Mark with strict traceability requirements.
- Strengthen the permitted-use language to require chain-of-custody documentation, provenance disclosure, digital traceability, and inspection/audit mechanisms.
- Provide transitional arrangements for existing supply chains but prohibit any retroactive or unconditional delegation of the GI logo by AUs to intermediaries.
These interventions are not optional: they are required to maintain the integrity of the GI ecosystem.
Principles for Revision: The Foundation of a Fair GI System
Any revision of the guidelines must be grounded in a set of core principles that uphold the integrity of the GI system and protect the communities whose cultural labour sustains it. First, producer primacy must be non-negotiable. Actual GI Producers (AGPs) are the custodians of the product’s heritage, skill, and reputation. The regulatory framework must therefore centre its economic and cultural interests, ensuring that it—not intermediaries—remains the primary beneficiary of GI protection.
Second, traceability is essential to maintaining authenticity. Every use of the GI name or logo should be supported by a verifiable chain-of-custody system that documents the origin of the product, its production process, the individuals who handled it, and whether it conforms to registered standards. Without enforceable traceability, the identity of a GI becomes vulnerable to blending, repackaging, and misrepresentation.
Third, role clarity is the backbone of an accountable GI ecosystem. The guidelines must clearly distinguish between categories such as Actual GI Producers (AGPs), Authorised User-Producers, Authorised User-Packers, Authorised Intermediaries, dealers, exporters, and other actors. Each category should have defined rights and explicit limits, preventing intermediaries from assuming privileges intended only for producers.
Fourth, consumer transparency is vital for maintaining trust in the GI system. Distinct visual identifiers—such as a separate GI Producer Logo and an Intermediary Mark—help consumers easily differentiate authentic producer-made goods from products that have only been packed or distributed by intermediaries. Transparent labelling ensures that the GI logo continues to function as a symbol of origin, not merely a marketing embellishment.
Finally, prevention of opportunistic appropriation must guide all regulatory design. The guidelines should ensure that prior trademark rights, creative branding strategies, or supply-chain positioning cannot be used to bypass GI protections or create false impressions of origin. This principle preserves the moral and economic rights of producer communities while preventing dilution of the GI’s heritage value.
Together, these principles restore alignment between the Draft Guidelines and the foundational philosophy of the GI Act—one that places authenticity, locality, culture, and producer welfare at the heart of India’s GI protection regime.
Proposed Categorisation: A Fair and Modern GI Governance Structure
To operationalise these principles, the guidelines should introduce these categories:
- Actual GI Producer (AGP): The individual, cooperative, or producer group that physically produces the GI good using registered methods and within the geographical area. Only AGPs should use the official GI logo.
- Authorised User (AU): Revised to include AU-Producer and AU-Packer. AU-Packer can use the logo only under an AGP-issued licence and with full traceability.
- Authorised Intermediary (AI): Dealers, exporters, retailers, carriers, packagers, and traders who do not produce GI goods. They may use a separate Intermediary Mark, never the GI logo.
- Dealers/packagers/exporters: Must disclose producer identity and maintain chain-of-custody documents.
This categorisation aligns rights with roles, preventing misuse of the GI logo.
Regulatory Amendments Needed: A Draft for the Registry
Revised Clause 1.1 should restrict GI logo usage exclusively to AGPs and authorised packers who produce and pack within the GI region (with consent from the Actual GI producer for restricted quantity). Intermediaries do not qualify for use of the GI logo under any circumstances. A new Clause 1.1.1A should introduce a mandatory Intermediary Mark, accompanied by producer identity and traceability requirements. Exceptions for prior trademarks must include disclaimers that prevent any false association with the GI origin.
Labelling and Logo Regime: Preserving Clarity and Authenticity
A two-tier logo system is essential:
- The Official GI Logo, used only by AGPs and AU-Packers operating within the GI region, accompanied by producer name, registration number, batch number, origin, and QR-based traceability.
- A distinct Intermediary Mark, visually different from the GI logo, mandatory for all intermediaries (packers, distributors, exporters, dealers). This mark must clearly disclose “Produced by [AGP] – Packed/Distributed by [Intermediary].”
Digital traceability should be compulsory for all GI-labelled goods. Online platforms must display the provenance and correct logo type.
Compliance, Enforcement, and Accountability
A public Producers’ List should be maintained and updated. Annual chain-of-custody audits and random inspections must be mandatory. Non-compliance should result in suspension of logo privileges. A mediation mechanism should resolve disputes between producers and intermediaries. Intermediaries should contribute to a Producer Welfare Fund via licensing fees or royalties, ensuring fair revenue distribution.
Why a Separate Intermediary Mark is Non-Negotiable
A distinct mark for intermediaries ensures that consumers are not misled into believing that intermediaries are producers. It protects AGP’s reputation, reduces incentives for fraudulent relabelling, and maintains transparency without stifling commerce. Intermediaries continue to operate, but with accountability and clarity.
Conclusion: The GI Logo Must Remain a Badge of Origin, Not a Commodity Label
The Draft Guidelines aim to streamline GI governance, but unless revised, they risk diluting the credibility of India’s GI ecosystem. Allowing intermediaries broad access to the GI logo misaligns with the GI Act, undermines producer rights, and threatens the authenticity that makes GIs economically and culturally valuable. A recalibration is essential: the GI system must remain rooted in producer primacy, authenticity, and transparency. Before final notification, DPIIT must ensure that the GI logo remains a mark of genuine origin—not a transferable marketing asset within the supply chain.