Shruti and the trademark renewal caught between GI and trademark law
Shruti, 36, founded Indigo & Ochre in 2018 — four-person brand studio designing identities for Rajasthani textile labels using traditional block-print patterns. She registered "Indigo & Ochre" trademark in 2014 (Classes 35, 16). Renewal due September 2026. She filed April 2025. Registry demanded contemporaneous proof of use. Then the Bagru Block Print Artisans' Collective filed a GI infringement objection.
🚨 The problem
Two notices: (1) Formality objection requiring detailed evidence of continuous use since 2014; (2) GI collective claiming "Indigo & Ochre" conflicted with Bagru Block Print GI. ₹45,000 lawyer's bill estimated. Risk: loss of trademark or expensive infringement case. 30-day response window.
🚀 How GabFORGE helped
Meera (strategist) asked the agent to read both notices:
🔍 Verified the dual-track issue: Formality objection (trademark registry question) and GI collective objection (separate system) are separate but related.
💬 Translated the coexistence path: The GI covers "technique and origin." Your mark is brand identity. Both can coexist via formal agreement.
📞 Connected the strategy: File detailed Form TM-50 with invoices and evidence for formality. Simultaneously propose coexistence agreement with collective.
Shruti pulled invoices dating to 2014, drafted new declaration, and proposed coexistence terms (no Bagru-certification claims, acknowledgment of GI). Collective agreed. Renewal approved March 2026. Total cost: ₹12,000 lawyer fee (not ₹45,000).
🇮🇳 Why this matters
Design studios building brands around heritage and tradition inevitably hit the intersection of trademark law and GI law. The two systems were not designed to talk to each other. Coexistence is the legal mechanism both systems recognize.
Trademark and GI both valid. The question is which blue line to draw between them. Coexistence is how you draw it.