By – Srisoniya Subramoniam

Abstract

Geographical Indications (GIs) are important tools within the World Trade Organization’s framework, as they protect products linked to origin and tradition. While the intention was to safeguard indigenous heritage, debates persist over whether such measures have inadvertently transformed culture into a commercial asset.  This article examines this dual nature of the WTO’s ongoing GI discussions, their promise of recognition and their risk of commodification. It further evaluates India’s efforts in protecting Traditional Knowledge (TK) through the employment of instruments such as the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), thereby highlighting both its achievements in preventing biopiracy and its limitations as a state-led defensive measure. The article peruses secondary resources such as published papers, articles, and other online sources to conduct and complete the research proposed.

Introduction

Traditional Knowledge has a unique nature, owing to its interesting combination of intellectual property and public domain knowledge, which makes its protection an arduous task. With time, globalization and trade liberalisation have sought to transform such cultural knowledge into valuable economic assets, leading to an ongoing debate regarding its validity and the consequences of such liberty for the indigenous community. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the WTO recognizes Geographical Indications (GIs) as a means to protect products whose characteristics are linked to their geographical origin. Yet, such a protection does not find much presence beyond the wines and spirits in the present time. For developing countries such as India, GIs serve not only as a market access tool but also as a form of cultural assertion within global trade. 

This promise is, however, complicated by practicality, which is whether a trade-centric intellectual property framework can truly be the best mechanism to safeguard indigenous traditions, or does it risk the conversion of such knowledge into commodified brands? India has taken efforts to mitigate such a dilemma by the creation of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), which has been often hailed as a pioneering step towards biopiracy prevention and wrongful patenting. Despite such measures, ambiguity exists as to aspects of recognition, ownership, and control of such knowledge within the international trade disputes framework. 

This article explores these dual dimensions: first, whether the WTO’s GI framework adequately protects indigenous products or commercializes culture; and second, how effective India’s TKDL has been in translating traditional knowledge into meaningful protection in global forums.

WTO’s GI Regime: A Protective Shield or a Market Gateway?

GIs have been recognized by the WTO under Articles 22–24 of TRIPS to safeguard products that are closely associated with certain territories. For developing economies in particular, GIs act as tools of economic empowerment and development, and cultural preservation. India provides a compelling example, as its registered GIs, ranging from Darjeeling Tea to Kanchipuram Silk, illustrate how heritage can generate global value and revenue. But the structure established by the WTO reveals inherent asymmetries – wherein higher protection often applies to wines and spirits (through Article 23) while handicrafts, agricultural goods, and artisanal knowledge, which are genuine lifelines of indigenous communities, are often left with sub-standard safeguards. This divide exists due to a vicious divide between developed and developing countries. 

In May 2024, the Diplomatic Conference under the aegis of the WTO formed the first-ever WIPO Treaty, which is at the interface of intellectual property, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge. This treaty is deemed to establish the requirement for a new disclosure for patent applicants whose inventions are based on genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge. It is further important to note at this juncture that Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides that indigenous people “have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their Intellectual Property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.” 

Critics have often contended that while the GI framework is built on cultural preservation, it has become fundamentally market-driven. Such a framework is not very advantageous for Traditional Knowledge owing to standardization of such knowledge subsequent to registration as GI, thereby depriving them of the dynamism that brings them to life. In addition to this, communities might be exploited further as benefits may begin to flow to commercial intermediaries rather than the indigenous community to whom the knowledge may originally belong. In this sense, GIs can function less as cultural protection and more as instruments of commodification, where culture is reimagined through the lens of global tradeability. The challenge lies in reconciling collective ownership and commercial value within a system designed for proprietary rights. Without structural reforms, the WTO’s GI framework risks preserving the image of culture while alienating the communities that embody it.

Guarding Tradition, Limiting Agency: The Paradox of India’s TKDL

India is known to have a rich biodiversity and ancient knowledge; therefore, it is not a surprise that it has often encountered biopiracy incidents – ranging from a turmeric wound-healing patent to the neem fungicide dispute. This highlights the vulnerability of traditional knowledge within the global IP regime. The Indian Government 2001 established the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), which is a multilingual database documenting traditional knowledge, to mitigate such piracies in the future. TKDL enables a defensive protection, preventing misappropriation of known knowledge by granting access to the patent offices. One of the most persuasive rationales for protecting Traditional Knowledge is equity – often in the form of righting past wrongs. This is derived from the observation that unequal genetic resources exist due to historical injustices that were perpetrated in certain territories due to colonialism. 

Although the TKDL has achieved tangible success in protecting knowledge, it remains a state-centric mechanism that overlooks community ownership and fails to empower the custodians of such knowledge.  It fails to ensure benefit-sharing, which should have been the key concern and guiding light for the formation of TKDL. Another issue is that TKDL does not recognize Traditional Knowledge to be a part of the public domain that is not freely accessible. In WTO and WIPO negotiations, India has been consistent in advocating for mandatory disclosure of origin and prior informed consent, yet these proposals face resistance from developed members since they hinder growth and revenue from patents. The broader issue remains that by translating oral and spiritual knowledge into codified digital data, TKDL risks replicating the epistemic hierarchies it seeks to resist. It safeguards knowledge from the market, but not necessarily for the people who created it.

Conclusion

The current Geographical Indications framework reveals both potential and peril. While GIs offer a medium for recognition of indigenous creativity, their incorporation within a trade regime often privileges economic commodification over cultural preservation and identity. Similarly, India’s TKDL, although it appears to be a powerful instrument in the protection of Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous Communities, its effectiveness in ensuring community control and equitable benefits remains limited and is often only verbally contested. For genuine protection of traditional knowledge, it is important that international law move beyond market-based recognition and towards community-centric frameworks that respect the moral, spiritual, and collective dimensions of knowledge and its origins. Without such a shift in the framework, instruments like GIs and TKDL risk perpetuating a system where culture is acknowledged, but not owned by its original keepers. 

About the Author

Srisoniya Subramoniam is a third-year B.A. L.L.B. (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). She has a keen academic interest in legal scholarship, especially Intellectual Property Rights, Artificial Intelligence, International Law, and Criminal Litigation.

Image Source: https://share.google/images/KhcOHljkx7l2s5rqa