Manual explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Chapter 5 of the Manual explains how the Registry approaches section 9 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which lists the indications that cannot be registered even when they meet the definition of a geographical indication. This guide tells a producer body what the Registry looks for under each ground and what to prepare so that an objection can be answered.
The Manual (Version 01.11, 26 July 2011) is the GI Registry's guidance and does not have the force of law; the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Rules of 2002 as now in force prevail. The current position should be checked on ipindia.gov.in.
To be registered, an indication must first meet the definition of a geographical indication and must then avoid every prohibition in section 9. The Manual walks through seven: likely deception or confusion, being contrary to law, scandalous or obscene matter, matter hurtful to religious susceptibilities, being disentitled to protection in a court, generic names and literally true but falsely representing names. On several of these the Manual says the applicant bears the onus to answer an objection. The Act and Rules as now in force prevail.
The two-step test (Manual 05.01)
The Manual begins by saying the indication must fall within the definition of a geographical indication and, in addition, must not fall within the prohibitions of section 9. The statutory text is in our post on section 9. For the definition itself see what is a geographical indication. Our geographical indication registration service begins with this screening, before any form is prepared.
The seven grounds as the Manual explains them
Deception or confusion (05.01.01). The Manual says the deception or confusion need not be actual; it may be probable. Protection of public interest is described as the paramount consideration, and the Registrar considers the circumstances of the case. For the applicant, this means the name should not be one that a buyer would take to point to a different origin, product or standard.
Contrary to law (05.01.02). The Manual gives as an instance an indication prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Check that the name does not use a State emblem, an official name or a protected designation.
Scandalous or obscene matter (05.01.03). Whether a name is scandalous or obscene is decided on the facts of each case. The Manual adds that, on an objection, the onus is on the applicant to show that it is not. This is rare for place names, but a figurative element of an indication can raise it.
Matter hurtful to religious susceptibilities (05.01.04). An indication that may hurt the religious and moral susceptibilities of a section of Indian citizens may fall under the prohibition. Sacred names or symbols in a product name or device need a careful look.
Disentitled to protection in a court (05.01.05). The Manual says the Registrar would not normally extend protection to persons whose case is not founded in truth, and cites the decision in Eno v Dunn. The practical meaning is that the file must be accurate: an application resting on an overstated history is vulnerable.
Generic names (05.01.06). The Manual reads this ground with the two Explanations. A generic name is, in its summary, the name of goods which relates to the place where the goods were first produced but has lost that meaning and become the common name of the goods, serving as a designation of their kind, nature, type or characteristics. It says the name has ceased to be distinctive of one source and become common to the trade. It ties the ground to Article 24(9) of the TRIPS Agreement, under which there is no obligation to protect indications not or no longer protected in the country of origin, or fallen into disuse there. It also warns that the value of a GI diminishes where the origin loses its relevance.
Literally true but misleading (05.01.07). An indication that is literally true as to the territory, region or locality of origin but falsely represents to people that the goods come from another place cannot be registered. The Manual says the provision is meant to prevent deception and falsification. Our related post on homonymous indications under section 10 deals with the case where two genuine places share a name.
How an objection is framed and answered
An examiner who raises a section 9 objection will cite the clause and say why the name or the material in the application seems to fall within it. The reply should take the same clause and answer it with evidence, not with a general denial.
| Ground | A typical objection | What the reply can show |
|---|---|---|
| Deception or confusion | Name suggests another place or product | Documents showing the name has always denoted this product and place |
| Contrary to law | Name resembles an official emblem or name | The name is not within the protected list, with a note to that effect |
| Scandalous or hurtful | A device or word may offend | Meaning, history and respectful use of the term in the community |
| Not founded in truth | Claim of age or origin looks inflated | Dated records and independent references only |
| Generic | Name is common to the trade | Use of the name only for goods from this area; trade and consumer understanding |
| Misleading | Locality name suggests elsewhere | Clear description of place; no figurative element pointing elsewhere |
What has changed since the Manual
The grounds in section 9 are statutory and the Manual's account of them is still a useful guide. The caution is that the Manual is from 2011 and does not speak to the later changes in the Rules. Where an objection leads to a hearing or an order, appeals no longer go to the Appellate Board, which the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished. The Act and Rules as now in force prevail.
A worked example
The Kaveripur Pickle Makers' Association (an invented body) wants to register "Kaveripur Mango Pickle". During examination an objection says "Mango Pickle" is generic and asks whether "Kaveripur" might suggest another State.
The association replies in two steps. On genericness it says it claims the geographical name together with the product, not the words "mango pickle" alone, and files market evidence that buyers know the Kaveripur name as an origin. On misleading origin it files a map and a district record showing that Kaveripur is where the product has been made, and confirms there is no other locality of that name making pickle. It does not use a logo showing a landmark of another State. The objection is answered point by point, and the association asks for a hearing in case the Registrar is not satisfied.
Common lapses
- Choosing a name that is also the common trade name of the product.
- Using a figurative element that points to a different place.
- Overstating history in the statement of case.
- Replying to a section 9 objection with a general denial rather than evidence.
- Ignoring a second place with the same name.
Need help with a refusal risk?
If your producer body suspects its name may be treated as generic or misleading, we can test the name and the evidence before the Registry does. See our geographical indication registration service.
Key takeaways
- A GI must meet the definition and then clear every section 9 prohibition.
- Deception or confusion need not be actual.
- On scandalous matter, the onus is on the applicant to answer an objection.
- Generic names are those that have lost their link to a single source.
- A literally true place name can still be refused if it misleads about origin.
Read next
- Manual Chapter 4: examination, Examination Report and advertisement
- Manual Chapter 6: opposition to a GI application
- Draft filing guidelines 2026: who can apply and choosing the GI name
- The GI Registry Manual and the drafts: what each is
Disclaimer: Based on the documents of the Geographical Indications Registry named in the article (the Manual of Geographical Indications Practice and Procedure, Version 01.11 of 26 July 2011, and the draft guidelines published for comments in October 2025 and September 2026), as consulted on 4 October 2026. A draft is not final; none of these documents has the force of law; the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Rules of 2002 as now in force prevail and the current position should be checked on ipindia.gov.in. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.