Introduction
The dispute over the Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Tangail sarees between India and Bangladesh highlights complex issues of cultural heritage and intellectual property rights. It underscores broader concerns about cultural preservation, artisan rights, and economic implications of GI tags. This controversy began when India applied for the GI tag wherein, after a four-year process involving scrutiny and amendments, the “Tangail Saree of Bengal” GI was awarded to West Bengal State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited. During this period, Bangladesh appeared unaware or inactive regarding India’s application. While Bangladesh argues that Tangail sarees originate from its Tangail district, India claims generations of production in West Bengal. Bangladesh’s delayed response and subsequent actions highlight the challenges in navigating cross-border cultural heritage disputes, emphasizing the need for vigilant protection of traditional crafts and timely engagement in international intellectual property matters.
India’s GI Tag for the Tangail Saree
The process of registering a Geographical Indication (GI) for Tangail Saree in India began on September 8, 2020, when the Government of West Bengal filed an application for “Tangail Saree of West Bengal.” The application made historical claims about the saree’s origin in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) and its introduction to West Bengal by migrating traders. On September 11, 2020, the application was disqualified in an initial formality check due to violations of the India’s GI Act of 1999, naming discrepancies, and lack of historical proof. A reply to this check was submitted on January 21, 2021, but the provided documents actually referred to Tangail, Bangladesh as the place of origin.
The process continued with a consultative group meeting on November 10, 2022, followed by an examination report on December 26, 2022, which recommended amending the GI name. In response, on March 30, 2023, the name was changed to “Tangail Saree of Bengal,” a decision that was criticized for potentially misleading implications about its geographical scope. The GI Journal published the application on August 31, 2023, opening a three-month window for objections. Finally, on January 2, 2024, the GI for “Tangail Saree of Bengal” was officially registered, with no opposition filed by Bangladesh or any Bangladeshi entity.
In response to India’s GI registration, Bangladesh’s Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (DPDT) expedited the application process, seemingly completing it within a day. On February 7, 2024, DPDT “recognized” Tangail Saree as a GI product, but this term is misleading.Currently, Tangail Saree is not listed as a GI product on DPDT’s website, indicating that the registration process is still ongoing.
Arguments of the nations
India registered the GI tag for “Tangail Saree of Bengal”, claiming that the Tangail saree weavers (Basak community) migrated from the territory that is now Bangladesh to West Bengal. India has also argued that the suffix “of Bengal” in the GI tag is sufficient to indicate the true geographical origin and prevent misleading the public. They have contended that the Tangail saree produced in West Bengal has a long history and reputation, and the majority of the production and weaving population is now located there.
Bangladesh on the other hand argued that the Indian GI tag “Tangail Saree of Bengal” does not reflect the true geographical origin, which is the Tangail district in Bangladesh. This could mislead the public about the product’s origin. Bangladesh can claim that the Tangail saree has a long history, reputation and superior quality associated with the Tangail region in Bangladesh, and the public would associate the product with Bangladeshi origin. Although many Basak community members migrated to West Bengal and began weaving Tangail sarees in areas like Fulia, this does not change the fact that Tangail sarees originated in Tangail, Bangladesh. Due to the long shared colonial history among Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, significant cultural exchange has occurred. Through a colonial lens, anything originating from present-day Bangladesh could be considered part of Indian heritage. However, the only way to resolve this issue is by identifying which cultural and historic elements originated uniquely from what is now Bangladesh. History shows that Tangail sarees made by the Basaks are unique to Tangail, Bangladesh, and not from any other part of India.
Few economists, craft revivalists, and legal experts from Bangladesh and India also argue that India’s use of the specific Bangladeshi geographical name “Tangail” in the GI tag constitutes an act of unfair competition under the Paris Convention. Bangladesh has contended that they can challenge the Indian GI tag under the TRIPS Agreement, either by claiming it violates the prohibition on misleading the public about geographical origin (Article 22.2(a)), or constitutes an act of unfair competition (Article 22.2(b)).
Merits of either nations’ claims
The report submitted to the Geographical Indications Journal by India while claiming the GI Tag clearly stated that “weaving of the Tangail saree of Bengal was basically confined within a particular Hindu weaver’s community in East Bengal, having the surname Basak” but also tries to argue that after the partition of 1947 and the liberation war of 1971, it was India that provided the migrants with shelter and a livelihood which led to the flourishing of the Tangail Sarees with their “hybrid” and “unique” weaves and patterns.
Bangladesh in their counterclaim stated that one of the prerequisites for obtaining a GI tag is that the product must originate from the specific region it is named after. For example, Darjeeling Tea must come from Darjeeling, not elsewhere. In the same way, the name ‘Tangail’ in ‘Tangail Saree’ refers exclusively to the Tangail district in Bangladesh. Even if there is a place named “Tangail” in West Bengal, it does not change the fact that Tangail sarees’ reputation, popularity, and distinctive qualities originate from Tangail of Bangladesh.
Since in this case, sarees of both nations are called Tangail sarees, they may be called homonymous GIs, for which only one country receives the certifications. It is usually the country that produces the most and where the product is most recognized that will have a stronger claim, which here is Bangladesh.
Scope for joint protection of GIs/ Can nations share GIs
While Geographical indications (GIs) refer to products which originate from a specific geographical area, and in respect of which a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is linked to the geographical origin, Appellations of origin (AOs) represent geographical denominations that indicate a product’s origin as well as its distinctive and renowned qualities associated with the location. AOs are a class of GI that are given to products that have a strong link with their place of origin.
The Lisbon Agreement of 1958 is a treaty by the World Intellectual Property Organization that allows for the protection of AOs but neither India nor Bangladesh are signatory to the treaty.
The Geneva Act is a modernized version of the Lisbon Agreement which broadens its coverage to include all types of GIs in addition to AOs. It also allows international organizations to become contracting parties. Under this agreement, each participating country is required to implement protections for AOs and GIs from other signatory nations within their own legal frameworks. This obligation applies to products for which the country has agreed to provide protection. Under this Act, a product name registered as a GI or AO, in the EU as a protected geographical indication (PGI) or a protected designation of origin (PDO), can only be used by producers located in the designated area.
The Way Forward: Resolving the Dispute
Keeping in mind the diplomatic relations that the two nations possess, one can say that the dispute can be amicably resolved through healthy consultation and discussion between the governments of the nations. It can also be considered the responsibility of the Indian Government to protect the interests of Bangladeshi weavers through dispute resolution systems available in India if Bangladesh files its contentions in the appropriate Indian Court or anybody with sufficient jurisdiction. If bilateral consultations and legal recourse in India do not yield results, Bangladesh could potentially take the case to the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism under the TRIPS Agreement. Article 22 of TRIPS, which prohibits false indications of geographical origin, could form the basis for such litigation. However, the WTO dispute settlement system is currently dysfunctional due to a shortage of judges. While the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) could provide legislative advice, it has limited options as this is a dispute between member states. WIPO cannot intervene directly since GI protection remains a territorial matter under national laws.
The dispute reveals administrative oversights in Bangladesh, as authorities failed to notice or respond to India’s GI application process. Only after public outcry did Bangladesh quickly pursue its own GI recognition for Tangail sarees. This is a classic case where protection of intellectual property that is culturally crucial failed due to bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Written by Nissy Elizabeth James, legal intern @intepat IP
