Author(s): Ms. Mahalakshmi . E
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 2
Citation: IJLSSS 3(2) 53
Page No: 604 – 624
ABSTRACT
Geographical Indications (GIs) are an important component of intellectual property rights, aimed at protecting products that possess a specific geographical origin and exhibit qualities or a reputation due to that origin. India, being a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement, enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, to safeguard its culturally and economically significant products like Darjeeling Tea, Kanchipuram Silk, and Tanjore Paintings. While considerable attention has been paid to producers and traders in discussions around GIs, there remains a noticeable gap in assessing public awareness, especially among educators who play a foundational role in shaping informed future citizens. This study addresses that gap by focusing on the level of awareness and understanding of GIs among school teachers, a group essential for disseminating knowledge in society. This research adopts a non-doctrinal, empirical methodology, using a Google form-based questionnaires distributed among school teachers in Tiruchirappalli to Pudukkottain Main Road (Mathur Surroundings). This study emphasizes the importance of equipping educators with GI knowledge to foster awareness among students and the broader community. It recommends incorporating GI topics into teacher education programs and conducting awareness workshops at the district level. By focusing on a specific rural-semi urban corridor in Tamil Nadu, this research offers valuable insights into the grassroots understanding of intellectual property rights and the role of educators in bridging this critical knowledge gap.
Keywords: Geographical Indcations, School Teachers, Intellectual Property, Non-Doctrinal Research, Awareness, Empirical Study.
INTRODUCTION
Geographical Indications (GIs) are a form of intellectual property that identify goods as originating from a particular place, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. In India, the significance of GIs lies not only in protecting the identity of unique regional products but also in preserving traditional knowledge and promoting rural economic development. STamil Nadu, in particular, is home to several GI-tagged items such as Kanchipuram Silk Sarees, Thanjavur Paintings, and Madurai Jasmine, reflecting the state’s rich cultural and artisanal heritage. Despite growing attention on GIs at the national and international levels, awareness of their meaning and legal protection remains limited among the general public, especially in the field of education. School teachers, being key influencers in shaping the knowledge and values of future generations, play a crucial role in disseminating awareness about such important legal and cultural topics. However, little research has been conducted to assess how familiar teachers are with the concept of GIs, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas. This study focuses on assessing the level of awareness of GIs among school teachers in and around Mathur, a region situated along the Trichy to Pudukkottai main road in Tamil Nadu. By using a non-doctrinal, empirical research approach and collecting data through Google Forms, this research aims to evaluate teachers’ understanding of GIs, their knowledge of GI-tagged products in Tamil Nadu, and the sources through which they receive such information. The objective of the study is to identify the existing awareness gap and to understand how factors such as teaching experience, subject specialization, and educational exposure influence the level of knowledge about GIs. The findings of this research are expected to provide insights that could guide educational authorities in developing strategies to improve awareness among teachers through training programs, curriculum integration, and community-based initiatives. In doing so, this study aims to contribute to the broader goal of promoting intellectual property awareness at the grassroots level and strengthening the role of educators in safeguarding value of economic and also unique regional products of India.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
In India, the protection of regional goods through Geographical Indications (GIs) has gained legal and economic importance since the implementation of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. This legal framework was introduced in response to global obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, with the aim of recognizing and safeguarding products that carry unique qualities linked to their geographical origin. While various GI products like Darjeeling Tea, Kanchipuram Silk, and Thanjavur Paintings have achieved national and international recognition, awareness of GI rights and their importance remains confined mainly to producers and legal professionals. Despite the increasing number of registered GI products in Tamil Nadu, there is a noticeable lack of awareness among the general public, especially among educators who have the potential to influence community knowledge through their teaching. School teachers are instrumental in shaping young minds and spreading knowledge on legal, cultural, and economic matters. Yet, limited research has been conducted to understand how well school teachers comprehend the concept, value, and purpose of Geographical Indications. In rural and semi-urban regions such as Mathur, located along the Trichy to Pudukkottai main road, the problem becomes more pronounced. Teachers in these areas may not have access to proper training or exposure to intellectual property rights education, leading to a knowledge gap that affects how such concepts are introduced to students. This study identifies the core problem as the lack of structured awareness and understanding of GIs among school teachers in the Mathur region. Without adequate knowledge, teachers are less likely to promote or explain the significance of GI protection to their students, missing an important opportunity to preserve and promote India’s rich cultural heritage through education.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
- To assess the level of awareness among school teachers regarding the concept and significance of Geographical Indications (GIs).
- To identify the extent of knowledge school teachers have about GI-registered products, especially those originating from Tamil Nadu.
- To examine the sources through which school teachers receive information about GIs (e.g., media, training, curriculum, community awareness).
- To analyze the relationship between teachers’ educational background, subject specialization, and their awareness of GIs.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
- What is the general level of awareness among school teachers about the concept of Geographical Indications (GIs)?
- How well do school teachers understand the legal meaning and significance of GI tags?
- Do school teachers believe that GI tags help in preserving traditional, cultural, and regional identity?
- Are school teachers interested in attending seminars or training sessions related to GI awareness and legal protections?
- Do teachers feel that knowledge of laws such as the GI Act, 1999, should be included in professional development for educators?
HYPOTHISES OF THE STUDY (BASES ON COLLECTED DATA)
1. AWARENESS OF THE TERM “GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION”
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is no significant awareness among school teachers about the term “Geographical Indication.”
H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There is significant awareness among school teachers about the term “Geographical Indication.”
2. UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A GI TAG REPRESENTS
H₀: School teachers do not have a clear understanding of what a GI tag represents.
H₁: School teachers have a clear understanding of what a GI tag represents.
A notable number of teachers correctly identified GI-tagged products and their regional significance. However, confusion with “Trademark” and “Patent” suggests mixed understanding.
3. AWARENESS OF GI-TAGGED PRODUCTS FROM TAMIL NADU
H₀: Teachers are not aware of GI-tagged products from Tamil Nadu or their district.
H₁: Teachers are aware of GI-tagged products from Tamil Nadu or their district.
Many teachers named Kanchipuram Silk, Madurai Sungudi, Manapparai Murukku, etc., indicating high local awareness of GI products.
4. AWARENESS OF THE GI ACT, 1999
H₀: Teachers are not aware of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
H₁: Teachers are aware of the GI Act, 1999.
Only a few respondents confirmed knowledge of the GI Act. Most answered “No” or “Don’t Know,” supporting the null hypothesis.
5. SUPPORT FOR INCLUSION OF GI IN CURRICULUM
H₀: Teachers do not support the inclusion of GI-related topics in the school curriculum.
H₁: Teachers support the inclusion of GI-related topics in the school curriculum.
More than 80% agreed that GI and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) should be taught in schools, strongly supporting H₁.
6. INTEREST IN ATTENDING GI SEMINARS OR AWARENESS SESSIONS
H₀: School teachers are not interested in attending awareness programs or seminars on GI.
H₁: School teachers are interested in attending awareness programs or seminars on GI.
A high percentage responded “Yes” or “Maybe” to seminar interest, confirming their willingness to learn more.
7. NEED FOR GI LAW AWARENESS IN TEACHER TRAINING
H₀: Teachers do not feel GI law should be part of their professional development.
H₁: Teachers feel GI law should be part of their professional development.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK
The TRIPS Agreement, which came into force in 1995, created global standards for the protection of intellectual property, including GIs[1]. India responded by passing the GI Act in 1999 to protect its vast heritage of region-specific products. Scholars like Das have highlighted how GIs can uplift rural economies by legally recognizing the uniqueness of local products[2]. India’s first GI was Darjeeling Tea, registered in 2004, followed by several other products across sectors.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AWARENESS IN EDUCATION
The awareness of intellectual property rights, including GIs, in school education remains minimal. Nair and Selvam emphasized the necessity of including IP topics in school curricula to promote innovation and respect for traditional knowledge[3]. Teachers, as key educational agents, are expected to educate students about such civic and economic issues. However, training modules and syllabi often ignore GIs and IPR education entirely, especially in semi-urban schools.
GAP IN RESEARCH: FOCUS ON SCHOOL TEACHERS
Very few studies target school teachers as the subject of GI awareness. Ramesh and Thomas’s (2020) study in Kerala found that less than one-fifth of secondary school teachers had a basic understanding of GIs[4]. This is a concern, as educators could play a critical role in raising awareness in local communities. Your research, focused on the Mathur region, is likely among the first in Tamil Nadu to address this particular demographic.
REGIONAL IMPORTANCE OF TAMIL NADU IN GI REGISTRATIONS
Tamil Nadu ranks high in GI registrations, with diverse products in the fields of agriculture, handlooms, and handicrafts. A study by the Tamil Nadu State Council for Science and Technology noted that awareness about GI rights is limited mostly to producer clusters and not extended to the education sector or broader communities[5]. Including school teachers in outreach efforts could lead to more widespread understanding and local pride.
NEED FOR EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS AND TEACHER TRAINING:
Bhattacharya and Saha advocate that equipping teachers with knowledge on IPR can benefit both classroom teaching and wider societal understanding[6]. WIPO and the Indian National IPR Policy (2016) also recommend strengthening IP education. However, most teacher training programs have yet to include IP rights, including GIs, as part of their core or optional modules.
DIGITAL TOOLS AND RESEARCH GAPS
With increasing access to the internet, there is potential to improve GI awareness through digital means. However, research in rural or semi-urban areas like Mathur on digital outreach for IP awareness is still lacking. Your use of Google Forms for data collection adds to the limited field-based studies that focus on educational stakeholders rather than producers or consumers.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND THE NEED FOR GI AWAWARENESS CREATION:
Creating awareness about Geographical Indications (GIs) among the public, particularly educators, is essential for preserving India’s traditional knowledge and promoting rural economic development. While legal recognition through GI registration protects products, the benefits can only be realized if stakeholders—including producers, consumers, and especially teachers—understand the value and function of GIs. Teachers play a foundational role in shaping student knowledge and attitudes; thus, integrating GI awareness in the school curriculum and teacher training programs is a vital step toward sustainable development and cultural preservation. Awareness is not only an educational necessity but also a legal and policy priority in India. Several laws and institutional frameworks exist to encourage public understanding of GI rights, their economic impact, and the cultural identity they represent. These legal provisions not only protect the products but also mandate and promote outreach and education efforts.
GEOGRAHICAL INDICATIONS OF GOODS (REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION ) ACT,1999
The central legislation governing GIs in India is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into force on 15th September 2003. The Act defines a GI as a sign used on goods with a specific geographical origin and a reputation or quality due to that origin. It allows producers to register GIs and grants them exclusive legal rights to use the mark[7].
Under Section 11 of the Act, associations of persons or producers are entitled to apply for GI registration, and infringement provisions under Sections 21 to 23 provide remedies for unauthorized usage. Although the Act does not expressly prescribe educational campaigns, its effective implementation depends on public knowledge about GIs. This makes awareness creation an implied necessity under the framework.
TRIPS AGREEMENT (1995)
India, as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is bound by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Articles 22 to 24 of TRIPS provide a global framework for the protection of GIs and require member nations to enforce legal protections for registered GIs. The TRIPS Agreement supports public education and transparency in GI protection by obligating governments to prevent misleading uses and raise awareness about protected products[8].
NATIONAL IPR POLICY, 2016
The National IPR Policy, introduced by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), outlines a holistic vision for strengthening the IPR ecosystem in India. Objective 1 of the policy IPR Awareness: Outreach and Promotion specifically calls for the integration of IP education in schools, universities, and public forums. It encourages awareness campaigns, training for teachers, and inclusion of IP topics in the curriculum, including Geographical Indications[9]. This policy recognizes that while laws provide protection, awareness is the foundation for enforcement. Without understanding what a GI is, neither teachers nor the public can promote or protect it. The policy calls for collaborative efforts between the government, academia, and civil society to enhance IP literacy.
ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN PROMOTING GI AWARENESS
India has set up a dedicated GI Registry in Chennai, under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, to facilitate registration and public access to GI data. In addition, the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM) under DPIIT has actively conducted GI awareness programs in schools and colleges, often in collaboration with state departments, NGOs, and industry groups. These initiatives aim to bridge the gap between legal recognition and public understanding. Exhibitions, teacher training workshops, and campaigns like “GI Mahotsav” organized across India have helped in popularizing GI tags and educating stakeholders about their legal and economic implications.
EDUCATION POLICY SUPPORT: NEP 2020
Although not a legal mandate, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 provides strong support for mainstreaming indigenous knowledge systems, including traditional arts, crafts, and locally specific products. This indirectly supports the integration of GI education into social studies, economics, and culture-related school subjects. NEP also advocates for teacher empowerment, which aligns with the goals of this research raising teacher awareness of GI protection and its role in preserving India’s intangible heritage[10].
GAP IDENTIFICATION
Although India has made considerable progress in the legal recognition and protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) through the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the National IPR Policy of 2016, there remains a notable gap between the law and its reach at the grassroots level, particularly in the field of education. One of the major gaps is the lack of awareness among school teachers key agents of knowledge transfer regarding the significance, protection, and cultural value of GIs. While teachers are expected to teach social, economic, and cultural topics to students, they themselves often lack basic exposure to intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially GIs. This results in a missed opportunity to transmit this valuable knowledge to the next generation. Another significant gap is the absence of structured educational content on GIs in the school curriculum. Despite various GI products being linked with regional heritage, there is no formal mechanism to include such topics in social science or economics textbooks at school level. Furthermore, training programs and seminars conducted by institutions like the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM) or the DPIIT rarely reach rural and semi-urban educators such as those in the Mathur area. In addition, awareness campaigns are often urban-centric, leaving out districts and villages where many GI products originate. There is also a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration between education departments and IP authorities. Without a joint strategy that involves school boards, teacher training institutes, and legal experts, awareness cannot be effectively institutionalized. Moreover, there is limited access to simplified learning resources materials that explain GIs in regional languages and teacher-friendly formats are rare, contributing to the overall knowledge gap. These findings highlight the urgent need to bridge the disconnect between legal protection and public understanding of GIs. Addressing these gaps through policy implementation, curriculum reforms, and targeted awareness drives is essential to ensure that educators become informed promoters of India’s rich intellectual property heritage.
RESEARCH APPROACH
The study adopts a quantitative research approach, using structured, close-ended questions to gather measurable data. This method was selected to assess the frequency and patterns of GI awareness among educators and to derive insights based on statistical responses.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A non-doctrinal (empirical), descriptive survey design was used for this study. This design is suitable for collecting factual information from a specific group school teachers and analyzing the present level of awareness, understanding, and attitudes related to GI and intellectual property rights.
RESEARCH SETTING
The research was conducted in schools located in and around Mathur, along the Trichy to Pudukkottai main road, Tamil Nadu. The area includes a mix of aided, government, and private schools from both urban and semi-urban backgrounds. Teachers from these schools were selected as they play a key role in educational dissemination.
VERIABLES OF THE STUDY
Independent Variable: Awareness of Geographical Indications (GI)
Dependent Variables: Teachers responses regarding knowledge of GI-tagged products, legal understanding, curriculum inclusion, and professional development needs.
ANALYSIS , FINDINGS, AND INTERRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data collected through a structured Google Form. A total of 30 school teachers from different types of schools government, aided, and private responded to the questionnaire. The analysis focuses on measuring the awareness, understanding, and opinions of teachers regarding Geographical Indications (GI), GI-tagged products, and the relevance of GI education.
STATISTICAL TOOLS
FIGURE NO:1
FIGURE-1
INTERPRETATION
The chart shows that 83.3% of teachers are familiar with the concept of Geographical Indications when provided with a relatable example. This indicates that contextual examples like Kancheepuram Silk Sarees improve understanding. However, 16.7% still responded “No,” showing a small gap in awareness that must be addressed.
INFERENCE
Most teachers can recognize GI concepts when explained with local examples. This supports the idea that curriculum-based illustrations and teacher training using regional GI products can enhance overall awareness among educators.
FIGURE NO:2
FIGURE-2
INTERPRETATION
The pie chart indicates that a significant majority 80% of school teachers have heard the term Geographical Indication (GI), suggesting a basic level of awareness exists within the teaching community. However, 20% of respondents reported they had not heard the term, indicating that awareness is not yet universal among educators, especially in semi-urban areas.
INFERENCE
This data highlights a positive trend in GI awareness, but also reveals a clear need to bridge the remaining knowledge gap. Awareness programs and introductory modules on intellectual property rights, including GIs, should be included in teacher training to ensure consistent understanding across all education levels.
FIGURE NO:3
FIGURE-3
INTERPRETATION
The data from Figure No: 3 indicates that 76.7% of school teachers claim to know what a Geographical Indication (GI) tag represents. This reflects a considerable level of awareness regarding the existence of GI tags among educators. However, a notable 23.3% of respondents admitted they do not know what a GI tag stands for. This suggests that while the term may be familiar to most, not everyone understands its actual legal or cultural implications. The difference between simply recognizing the term and comprehending its role in protecting regional products must be addressed.
INFERENCE
Although a majority of teachers have some understanding of GI tags, the existence of a knowledge gap among nearly one-fourth of them highlights the need for more focused awareness and legal orientation. Providing real-world examples and including short sessions on intellectual property rights during in-service teacher training could help ensure a more uniform understanding across all schools.
FIGURE NO:4
FIGURE-4
INTERPRETATION
Figure No.4 presents a diverse set of responses from teachers regarding the classification of Geographical Indications (GI). Only 23.3% correctly identified GI as a form of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). A considerable portion, 30%, mistakenly believed GI is a Trademark, and 13.3% selected Patent, which is also incorrect. Alarmingly, 33.3% of respondents admitted they were unsure, selecting “Don’t know above all.” These findings suggest that while teachers may have heard of GI, many are unclear about its proper legal classification within IPR law.
INFERENCE
The data reveals a critical knowledge gap regarding the legal categorization of GIs. This misunderstanding could affect how teachers explain intellectual property topics to students. To correct this, teacher training programs should include simplified modules on the basic types of IPRs, including Geographical Indications, to ensure accurate knowledge transfer in classrooms and support informed community awareness.
FIGURE NO:5
FIGURE-5
INTERPRETATION
Figure No: 5 displays the variety of GI-tagged products that teachers could recall from Tamil Nadu or their local district. Responses show a wide spread, with Manapparai Murukku and Kanchipuram Silk Sarees being the most frequently mentioned. A small number of teachers also identified products like Erode Turmeric, Saffron, and Thirupuvanam Silk Sarees. Notably, 3 teachers (10%) responded with “No,” indicating they could not name any GI-tagged product. The variety of responses suggests that teachers have some familiarity with GI products but may lack complete clarity or confidence in identifying them accurately.
INFERENCE
This data reveals that while teachers are aware of several GI products, their knowledge is based on familiar or popular examples. There is a need to introduce more structured learning on GI items, particularly through local examples in teaching content. Such awareness can foster a deeper appreciation for regional heritage and improve intellectual property literacy in the classroom.
FIGURE NO:6
FIGURE-6
INTERPRETATION
Figure No: 6 shows how well school teachers can recognize GI-tagged products. The Kancheepuram Silk Saree received the highest recognition at 76.7%, indicating strong awareness of this iconic product. However, only 36.7% identified Tanjore Paintings and 33.3% recognized Madurai Sungudi as GI-tagged, both of which are also officially registered. Interestingly, 50% believed Tanjore Dolls are GI-tagged, although they are not registered as of now. This highlights confusion among respondents about which cultural items are formally recognized under GI status.
INFERENCE
Teachers tend to identify more famous or widely marketed products like Kancheepuram Silk correctly but are uncertain about others, even when they are officially GI-registered. This shows that while there is some level of awareness, it is not comprehensive. Educational programs should aim to clarify which products are truly GI-tagged and emphasize the legal recognition criteria, possibly through visual aids and classroom activities.
FIGURE NO:7
FIGURE-7
INTERPRETATION
Figure No: 7 illustrates respondents’ opinions on whether Geographical Indication (GI) tags help protect traditional or regional products. A majority of teachers either agreed (43.3%) or strongly agreed (33.3%), reflecting a strong belief in the positive role of GI in preserving cultural and economic value. A smaller group (16.7%) remained neutral, possibly due to limited understanding of the concept. Only 6.7% disagreed, indicating minimal resistance or skepticism.
INFERENCE
The results suggest that teachers largely recognize the value of GI tags in protecting and promoting traditional crafts, regional products, and cultural identity. This positive perception among educators indicates that they are open to becoming advocates of GI awareness in the school setting. Integrating GI-related content into educational materials and workshops could empower teachers to pass on this awareness to students, thus supporting both cultural preservation and legal literacy from a young age.
FIGURE NO:8
FIGURE-8
INTERPRETATION
Figure-8 presents the collective opinion of school teachers regarding the inclusion of Geographical Indication (GI) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the school curriculum. Based on the data collected from 30 respondents across the regions of Mathur, Trichy, and Pudukkottai, a substantial 86.7% of participants affirmed the need for integrating these topics into formal education. In contrast, only 13.3% expressed a negative stance. This response pattern clearly indicates a strong inclination among educators toward enriching the curriculum with contemporary and relevant knowledge areas like GI and IPR.
INFERENCE
The Teachers recognize the significance of introducing students to the concepts of intellectual property at an early stage. Such awareness is essential in fostering respect for creativity, innovation, and the protection of indigenous knowledge. Furthermore, it reflects the participants’ understanding that early education in IPR can empower future generations to value and safeguard their cultural and economic assets. This finding supports the broader objective of embedding IPR literacy into foundational learning to promote informed citizenship and sustainable development.
FIGURE NO:9
FIGURE-9
INTERPRETATION
The responses depicted in Figure No: 9 reveal a diverse range of attitudes among school teachers toward attending a seminar or awareness session on Geographical Indication (GI) products and their legal protection. Out of 30 participants, 33.3% expressed definite interest, while 43.3% responded with uncertainty by selecting “Maybe,” and 23.3% showed disinterest. The high percentage of “Maybe” responses indicates a lack of clarity or assurance among educators about the relevance or benefit of such sessions, suggesting that while awareness exists, engagement remains tentative.
INFERENCE
The findings point to a moderate but promising scope for conducting awareness programs on GI products among school teachers. The presence of a large undecided group highlights the need for targeted motivation strategies, such as contextualizing content with local examples or offering certification. It also implies that effective communication and outreach efforts could convert this group into active participants. The data supports the conclusion that while direct interest is limited to one-third of the respondents, the potential for increasing participation is significant if addressed through relevant and accessible awareness initiatives.
FIGURE NO:10
FIGURE-10
INTERPRETATION
The chart in Figure No: 10 reflects the level of awareness among school teachers regarding the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Among the 30 respondents, only 30% acknowledged familiarity with the Act, while a majority of 53.3% reported having no awareness of it. Additionally, 16.7% were uncertain, responding with “Maybe.” This suggests that more than two-thirds of the participants lack clarity or knowledge about the legal framework governing GI good.
INFERENCE
This data highlights a significant gap in legal literacy among educators concerning intellectual property rights, particularly GI-related legislation. The limited awareness of the 1999 Act among school teachers implies a broader need for targeted legal education initiatives within the academic sector. As educators play a crucial role in disseminating knowledge, their unfamiliarity with such legislation could hinder the integration of GI topics in school curricula. Hence, this insight reinforces the importance of awareness programs and training sessions to equip teachers with foundational legal knowledge, enabling them to guide students effectively in understanding GI and its protection mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
The study clearly establishes that while general awareness about Geographical Indications (GIs) exists among school teachers in the Mathur region, deeper legal understanding and academic integration remain limited. From the data, it was observed that although 80% of teachers had heard the term “Geographical Indication” and 76.7% could identify GI-tagged products like Kancheepuram Silk, only 30% were familiar with the GI Act, 1999. This reveals a significant knowledge gap between cultural familiarity and legal literacy. Teachers showed positive attitudes toward GIs’ role in protecting traditional and regional products, with over 75% agreeing or strongly agreeing that GI tags help preserve heritage. However, only one-third of respondents showed full interest in attending awareness programs. On the positive side, there was unanimous support for including GI awareness in the professional development of teachers, especially for those in the social sciences. This emphasizes the educators’ recognition of their role in promoting regional identity and legal awareness among students.
SUGGESTIONS
TEACHER TRAINING WORKSHOPS
Regular IPR and GI-focused seminars should be conducted for school teachers, especially targeting social studies and history educators.
CURRICULUM INTEGRATION
GI awareness should be included in school syllabi through local case studies and culturally relevant examples.
RESOURCE MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT
Simplified and illustrated GI learning materials in regional languages should be prepared for both students and teachers.
COLLABORATION WITH GI AUTHORITIES
Schools can partner with the GI Registry or CIPAM to organize field trips, exhibitions, and lectures.
AWARENESS THROUGH LOCAL MEDIA
Use local newspapers, community radio, and school notice boards to circulate GI-related information.
[1] WTO TRIPS Agreement, Article 22–24.
[2] Das, Kasturi. “Socioeconomic Implications of Protecting Geographical Indications in India.” Centre for WTO Studies, 2007.
[3] Nair, K., & Selvam, A. “Promoting IP Education in Schools: A Necessary Step.” Journal of Educational Research, 2018.
[4] Ramesh, S., & Thomas, J. “Secondary Teachers’ Awareness of GI and IPR in Kerala.” IPR Review, 2020.
[5] Tamil Nadu State Council for Science and Technology. “Awareness Survey on GI Products in Tamil Nadu,” 2019.
[6] Bhattacharya, M., & Saha, P. “Educating Educators: IP Rights in Indian Teacher Training.” WIPO Research Bulletin, 2019.
[7] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48 of 1999, Government of India.
[8] WTO, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Articles 22–24, 1995.
[9] Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, National IPR Policy 2016, Objective 1, Government of India.
[10] . Ministry of Education, National Education Policy 2020, Government of India.