The recently wrapped-up Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the United Kingdom and India is set to significantly boost bilateral trade, potentially adding over $34 billion to the annual figures. It’s been extensively admired for its promise to reduce tariffs and improve access in key sectors like automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and services. However, this agreement has raised some eyebrows among intellectual property supporters and artisanal communities. They’re concerned about how it might affect the protection of India’s Geographical Indications (GIs). These labels signify that a product originates from a specific area, with exceptional qualities or reputations connected to that region. India boasts over 500 registered GIs, particularly in handicrafts, textiles, and natural products. Sadly, the FTA falls short in providing acceptable legal safeguards for numerous cultural and economic treasures.
This report dives deep into the menaces and flaws highlighted in Chapter 13 of the FTA, which deals with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the mutual recognition of GIs. It divulges notable inconsistencies between the UK–India agreement and India’s GI legislation, specifically the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Additionally, the report suggests policy adjustments to safeguard Indian artisans, rural economies, and traditional knowledge systems from international trade duties that overlook non-agricultural GIs’ cultural and economic significance.
The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the United Kingdom marks a pivotal moment in the economic and diplomatic ties between the two nations. This agreement aims to boost trade by reducing tariffs, streamlining customs processes, and enhancing collaboration across various sectors. Chapter 13 explicitly addresses intellectual property rights to establish a framework for recognising and safeguarding geographical indications (GIs) between the two countries.
At first glance, including GI protections seems like a step in the right direction. By 2025, India is set to have over 500 GIs registered under its national laws, covering everything from agricultural goods to intricate handicrafts and textile traditions that reflect centuries of cultural heritage. However, a deeper dive into the FTA reveals that it falls short in fully recognising or protecting non-agricultural GIs. This represents a notable departure from India’s comprehensive approach to GIs and could jeopardise numerous economically vital products for rural communities, a testament to India’s rich cultural diversity.
A critical omission
One significant shortcoming of the FTA is that it overlooks handicrafts, manufactured goods, and natural products regarding GI protection. While it does cover agricultural items, wines, and food products, the absence of a specific mechanism to safeguard India’s artisanal and traditional industries is quite concerning. Take, for instance, the Banarasi Sarees from Uttar Pradesh, Aranmula Kannadi from Kerala, Thanjavur Paintings from Tamil Nadu, and Channapatna Toys from Karnataka. Each of these has a rich history and a unique community production system, yet they don’t get the recognition they deserve in this agreement.
This oversight undermines the hard work of Indian lawmakers, NGOs, and producer communities who have fought for legal recognition and market access for traditional crafts. According to India’s Geographical Indications of Goods Act of 1999, these products are market goods and represent cultural and regional identities. In contrast, the FTA seems to adopt a more European or Western perspective, prioritising GIs closely linked to trademark protections. This approach fails to appreciate the intricate, community-driven, and often intangible aspects of many Indian GIs.
New risks
The FTA’s reliance on a trademark-style GI framework adds a layer of complexity. In this setup, recognition often hinges on formal trademarks or certification marks, which might not be practical or suitable for many of India’s traditional goods crafted by informal artisan groups or cooperatives. This brand-focused approach not only overlooks India’s legal tradition of collective ownership and community rights but also paves the way for commercial exploitation and misappropriation.
One particularly concerning outcome is the risk of reverse passing off, where foreign companies might register trademarks that reference or resemble Indian GIs. These companies could then legally sell products that imitate Indian designs or production methods without returning anything to the original communities. In such situations, Indian GI producers would find themselves in lengthy legal battles in foreign courts, especially in the UK, to prove infringement — a daunting, costly, and often unrealistic task for most artisan groups. This legal imbalance could ultimately undermine the market value and cultural significance of Indian GIs.
Consequences for Indian producers
The socio-economic impact of this regulatory gap is significant. Many Geographical Indications (GIs), especially in the craft and textile industries, are the economic backbone of their communities. Take Baluchari Sarees from West Bengal, Madhubani Paintings from Bihar, Pochampally Ikat from Telangana, and Kalamkari from Andhra Pradesh — these items are not just products; they embody local employment, cultural identity, and social unity. By leaving these goods out of the Free Trade Agreement’s protection measures, the deal essentially cuts these communities off from the advantages of increased trade. Their products become more susceptible to imitation and misrepresentation in the UK market, and without enforceable rights, they have no means to seek justice. Artisans find it nearly impossible to protect their rights internationally without legal support from the government or dedicated monitoring organisations.
Legal incompatibility
The core legal philosophies behind the Indian GI Act and the IPR chapter of the FTA are pretty different. India’s 1999 GI Act is built on a rights-based framework emphasising collective ownership, traditional knowledge, and craftsmanship tied to specific regions. It sees Geographical Indications as commercial branding tools and a necessary means to preserve and promote cultural heritage. On the other hand, the UK–India FTA is more in line with international trademark law, focusing on individual ownership, formal registration, and commercial use. This creates a mismatch, where Indian producers have their rights acknowledged at home but find them unenforceable or irrelevant in international markets like the UK. In an era where ethical sourcing, sustainability, and authenticity are crucial to consumer choices, these gaps make it harder for India to leverage its unique soft power and artisanal exports.
Missed opportunity
The lack of explicit protections for India’s textile GIs is unfortunate. The Indian textile industry is worth over $200 billion and employs millions. It is one of the most promising areas for export growth. Heritage fabrics like Chikankari from Lucknow, Kullu Shawls from Himachal Pradesh, and many other GI-registered textiles are highly sought, especially by diaspora communities and ethically minded consumers in the UK.
If the FTA had included a robust section dedicated to protecting these non-agricultural geographical indications (GIs), it could have sparked a significant boost in exports, positioned India as a frontrunner in sustainable artisanal fashion, and offered essential legal safeguards against imitation. Unfortunately, without clear guidelines, Indian weavers and producers are left vulnerable to cheap knock-offs and design theft in the global marketplace. This not only jeopardises the cultural significance but also the economic value of these unique products.
Heritage or trade?
The UK–India Free Trade Agreement is a significant development that deepened bilateral economic relations. However, within its legal text are silences and exclusions threatening to undermine the communities it aims to empower. The omission of strong protection for non-agricultural GIs is a legal shortcoming and a larger policy failure that ignores the worth of India’s cultural heritage, rural entrepreneurship, and traditional knowledge systems.
As the agreement proceeds towards implementation, India still has a small window of opportunity to raise these issues. This would safeguard artisan livelihoods and cultural integrity and establish India as a world leader in fair, inclusive, and heritage-sensitive trade practices. The moment is now — before the costs become unrecoverable.
The writer is Assistant Professor (Senior Selection Grade), Boyd Tandon MCC Business School, Madras Christian College, Chennai
Published on July 29, 2025
