Section 66 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.
Section 66 decides where a GI suit must be filed. Suits for infringement of a registered geographical indication, suits relating to any right in a registered indication and suits for passing off must be instituted in a district court, no lower. For infringement and right-related suits, the district court includes the one where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. If you plan a suit, our legal dispute resolution team can help you choose the forum and prepare the plaint.
Three kinds of suit may not be filed in any court inferior to a district court: infringement of a registered GI, suits relating to any right in a registered GI, and passing off by use of an identical or deceptively similar GI, registered or unregistered. For the first two, the district court having jurisdiction includes the one where the plaintiff (or any one of several plaintiffs) actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain, despite the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. "Person" includes the registered proprietor and the authorised user.
Status after the amending Acts
Section 66 is not on the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 list and is not changed by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023. The printed text is current. Two small drafting slips appear in the printed sub-section (1)(c): "passing of arising out of" (read as "passing off arising out of") and "indentical on with" (read as "identical with").
Sub-section (1): suits that go to a district court
"No suit,—
- (a) for the infringement of a registered geographical indication; or
- (b) relating to any right in a registered geographical indication; or
- (c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any geographical indication which is identical with or deceptively similar to the geographical indication relating to the plaintiff, whether registered or unregistered,
shall be instituted in any court inferior to a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit."
| Clause | Type of suit | Registration needed? |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Infringement | Yes: a registered GI |
| (b) | Relating to any right | Yes: a registered GI |
| (c) | Passing off | No: the plaintiff's GI may be "registered or unregistered" |
The rule is a floor: the suit cannot be filed in a court below a district court. The text does not say a High Court cannot hear such a suit; it speaks only of courts "inferior to a district court". Infringement itself is explained in the article on section 22, and the bar on infringement actions for unregistered indications in the article on section 20. Section 66(1)(c) shows that passing off remains open for unregistered indications.
Sub-section (2): where the plaintiff can sue
"For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a 'district court having jurisdiction' shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain."
Reading it:
- It applies to clauses (a) and (b) only, that is infringement and suits relating to rights. It does not extend to passing off suits under clause (c).
- It adds a forum: the district court where the person instituting the suit resides, carries on business or works for gain. It does not remove the ordinary places of suit under the Code of Civil Procedure; it says the definition "shall ... include" the added one.
- The test is applied "at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding".
- Where more than one person institutes the suit, any of them may supply the connection.
- The words are "actually and voluntarily resides ... or personally works for gain". The word "actually" and "voluntarily" signal that a nominal or forced residence will not do.
The Explanation
"For the purposes of sub-section (2), 'person' includes the registered proprietor and the authorised user."
So the registered proprietor, such as a producer association, and an authorised user can each bring a suit at the place where they reside, carry on business or work. The article on authorised users explains who that is.
Why the plaintiff-friendly forum matters
An artisan group in one State often has to chase counterfeiters elsewhere. Sub-section (2) lets the group sue at home instead of in the defendant's district. The text does not say that the defendant's own district becomes unavailable; the ordinary rules remain.
Illustration
| Facts (invented) | Can the suit be filed there? |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff association is based in District A. The defendant sells fake goods from District B. Suit for infringement of a registered indication. | District A: yes, under sub-section (2). District B: under the ordinary rules, which sub-section (2) does not displace. |
| Same facts, but the suit is for passing off of an unregistered indication. | Sub-section (2) does not apply to clause (c); the ordinary rules decide, subject to the district court floor. |
| Three authorised users file together; one carries on business in District C. | District C: yes. "Any of them" is enough. |
| Suit filed before a civil judge below the rank of district court | Not permitted by sub-section (1) |
What the section does not say
- It does not say what a "district court having jurisdiction" is beyond the extension in sub-section (2); the ordinary rules of jurisdiction remain.
- It does not set a limitation period for the suit.
- It does not say how a person proves that he "personally works for gain".
- It does not mention fees or pleading formalities.
- Section 66 itself does not say what relief is available; that is in section 67, covered in the article on section 67.
Practical points
- Check that your GI is registered before choosing clause (a) or (b); for an unregistered GI, plan on a passing off suit under clause (c).
- Plead in the plaint the facts that connect you to the district: residence, business or work, as at the date of filing.
- In a joint suit, make sure at least one plaintiff has the local connection.
- Do not file in a court below a district court; the plaint is liable to be returned.
Need help deciding where to file a GI suit?
Forum mistakes cost time. Our legal dispute resolution team can advise whether your case is infringement, a right-related suit or passing off, pick the district court and prepare the plaint with the facts that support jurisdiction.
Key takeaways
- Suits for infringement of a registered GI, relating to a right in one, and for passing off must be filed in a district court or higher, not below.
- Passing off covers registered and unregistered indications.
- For infringement and right-related suits, the plaintiff's place of residence, business or work gives jurisdiction, notwithstanding the Code of Civil Procedure.
- "Person" includes the registered proprietor and the authorised user.
Read next
- Section 67: relief in a suit for infringement or passing off
- Section 22: infringement of registered geographical indications
- Section 73: groundless threats of legal proceedings
- Infringement of geographical indication: penalties
Disclaimer: Based on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 read with the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and procedure are set by the rules made under the Act. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.