Protecting Geographical Indications in Pakistan: Legal Gaps, Infringement Standards, and Comparative Lessons from China and the European Union

Abstract

Geographical indications (GIs) protect signs that identify goods as originating from a particular territory where the quality, reputation, or other characteristics of the goods are essentially attributable to that place. For Pakistan, GI protection is not merely a technical branch of intellectual property law; it is connected with rural livelihoods, export branding, food quality, cultural heritage, and the collective rights of producer communities. This article critically examines Pakistan's Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Act, 2020, with particular attention to two unresolved legal problems: the conflict between GIs and prior trademarks, and the determination of infringement where unauthorized users exploit the reputation of a protected geographical name. The discussion shows that the 2020 Act represents an important legislative achievement, especially after the long absence of a sui generis GI regime. However, the law remains incomplete because it does not provide detailed standards for priority, coexistence, honest concurrent use, consumer confusion, evocation, unfair advantage, or public enforcement. These deficiencies reduce the practical value of GI registration for dispersed farmers, artisans, and producer groups that often lack the financial capacity to monitor markets and litigate infringements. The article uses a doctrinal and comparative method, drawing on the Court of Justice of the European Union's evocation jurisprudence in Scotch Whisky Association v Klotz, China's mixed GI protection model, the EU's consolidated 2024 GI regulation, WIPO's 2025 data on global GI activity, and the still-unresolved India-Pakistan Basmati rice dispute currently pending before the European Commission. Its innovative contribution is the proposal of a Pakistan-specific four-stage infringement test, a structured GI-trademark coexistence matrix, and an institutional enforcement model linking IPO-Pakistan, Customs, provincial regulators, and producer organisations. The article concludes that Pakistan must move beyond registration-focused protection and develop a coordinated system of quality control, market surveillance, border enforcement, and community participation if its GI regime is to protect indigenous products effectively and contribute to sustainable economic development.