The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between India and the United Kingdom (CETA), which entered into force on July 15, 2026, is often described as an agreement covering tariffs and market access. However, for businesses holding valuable brands, patents, or cross-border investment plans, two other chapters are equally vital: Intellectual Property and Investment. Yet, the development of these two domains under the CETA framework differs markedly. The intellectual property protection provisions are comprehensive and exhaustive. In contrast, investment protection noticeably lacks the formal structures that most investors would expect.

This article outlines what CETA actually provides regarding intellectual property, what is missing on the investment side, and how businesses should respond to both aspects.

Chapter 13: India's Most Comprehensive IP Chapter to Date

CETA's Intellectual Property Chapter (Chapter 13) contains over 100 articles and is widely regarded as India's most comprehensive IP chapter in any free trade agreement to date. Covering patents, trademarks, copyright and related rights, geographical indications, industrial designs, trade secrets, and enforcement, the chapter aligns with both countries' existing obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), while going further in areas such as transparency and institutional cooperation.

National Treatment and Transparency

This chapter requires both countries to accord national treatment to each other's nationals, meaning UK IP holders in India and Indian IP holders in the UK must not receive protection less favorable than domestic IP rights holders. The agreement also adds binding transparency commitments requiring the online publication of laws, regulations, administrative procedures, and rights registration information related to trademarks, patents, designs, and geographical indications. For businesses establishing IP portfolios in both jurisdictions, this measure makes it convenient to independently query IP registration statuses, opposition proceedings, and enforcement case progress without relying on local law firms for basic information in every instance.

Geographical Indications: A Standout Feature Clause

A major standout feature of this chapter is the establishment of a dedicated and independent protection system for geographical indications (GIs), covering wines, spirits, agricultural products, and foodstuffs. This holds direct commercial value for numerous Indian producers; from Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice to regional traditional handicrafts, their GI status can now receive more robust protection and enforcement guarantees in the UK market. The agreement mandates both countries to establish formal GI protection regimes, including public registers and examination procedures, as well as procedures formulated through competent authorities for mutual recognition, opposition, cancellation, and enforcement.

Digital Enforcement and Domain Name Disputes

Given the realities of modern commerce, this chapter also addresses domain name disputes. Where domain names are registered or used in bad faith and are confusingly similar to registered trademarks, remedies such as cancellation, transfer, or damages are available. This extends the scope of brand protection from physical markets into cyberspace—where infringement disputes increasingly originate in practice.

Public Health Safeguards

Notably, this chapter retains public health safeguard mechanisms without undermining India's regulatory authority to manage medicine accessibility. The agreement clarifies that implementing voluntary licensing under mutually agreed terms between parties is a preferred approach to enhancing medicine accessibility. This practice aims to balance IP protection with public interest, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. This demonstrates that while India strengthened IP enforcement in other areas, it deliberately preserved its regulatory autonomy in the national public health sphere.

Institutional Cooperation Mechanisms

This chapter also establishes a Standing Working Group on Intellectual Property responsible for supervising agreement implementation, promoting bilateral cooperation, and building a regular dialogue channel between the two countries. Rather than resorting to formal dispute settlement procedures, this working group is likely to serve as the practical mechanism over time to resolve specific IP disputes, ambiguities, or emerging issues (such as AI-related IP matters). Full details on the scope of this chapter can be found in the official overview of key CETA chapters published by the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Investment Section: A Noticeable Void

This is precisely where businesses need to adjust their expectations. Despite its broad coverage, the agreement does not establish an independent investment protection chapter, nor does it incorporate an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. This means that unlike traditional bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the agreement does not grant foreign investors the right to initiate international arbitration; investors cannot sue either government over alleged breaches of investment protection standards such as fair and equitable treatment or protection against expropriation by India or the UK.

This is not an oversight of the agreement; it reflects India's long-standing, deliberate policy stance. Heavily influenced by adverse outcomes in earlier BIT arbitrations, this stance aims to limit private ISDS mechanisms and preserve its regulatory sovereignty in sovereign policy decision-making. The UK side reportedly pushed to include an ISDS mechanism during negotiations, as UK businesses sought guarantees of fair treatment under the Indian legal system, but both parties ultimately omitted such mechanisms from CETA.

Interpretation of Practical Impacts

The practical implications of this omission are as follows:

· Strengthening investor protection between India and the UK remains an open question, rather than a finalized outcome under the current agreement.

· A separate, dedicated bilateral investment treaty would need to be concluded—possibly modeled on India's 2015 Model BIT—to establish specific investor protection measures and tailored dispute resolution mechanisms.

· Businesses currently investing in either country, if encountering investment disputes, can only rely on local domestic judicial remedies and general contract law for protection, without the ability to initiate international arbitration under a treaty.

A UK parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing the agreement directly pointed out this void, noting that because an investment chapter was not reached, strengthening investor protection remains merely an objective rather than a settled outcome, leaving a future bilateral investment treaty as an unfinished task. The committee's full analysis can be found in its detailed report on CETA.

General Dispute Settlement Mechanism Remains Applicable

It is worth noting that CETA does contain a chapter on general state-to-state dispute settlement, as well as binding dispute resolution mechanisms for breaches of core labor rights, environmental obligations, and broader CETA provisions, prescribing corresponding consequences for repeated violations. This strengthens the enforceability of commitments made at the intergovernmental level under the agreement. However, this is distinct from, and cannot substitute for, an ISDS mechanism. Under CETA itself, businesses still cannot independently seek remedies through this mechanism. Businesses wishing to understand how the above mechanisms affect their cross-border rights may consult professional institutions.

Corporate Response Strategies

Treat CETA's IP chapter as a proactive opportunity for registration. Businesses with valuable brands, patents, or products meeting GI criteria should review their registration status in both jurisdictions and take full advantage of the improved transparency and enforcement frameworks, rather than taking it for granted that protection is automatic. Pay close attention to the Working Group on IP. As implementation issues arise, this body may formulate practical guidelines, particularly on emerging matters such as digital enforcement and AI-related IP. Do not assume investment treaty-like protection exists under CETA. Investors planning major capital commitments in India or the UK should not rely on CETA to safeguard ISDS rights. Structuring investments through robust contractual protections and appropriate domestic legal safeguards remains critical. Monitor developments regarding a standalone India–UK investment agreement. Given that both governments have signaled intent to reach a dedicated investment agreement, businesses with long-term investment plans should closely track related negotiations, as any future treaty could materially alter cross-border investment risk assessments. Leverage the general dispute settlement chapter where applicable. Although this chapter offers no investor-state recourse, state-to-state dispute settlement may still play a role when government-level actions breach broad CETA commitments and consequently exert a collective impact on a sector or group of enterprises.

Conclusion

CETA provides a genuinely robust and modern framework for intellectual property protection that Indian and UK businesses should actively leverage to strengthen and defend their IP portfolios in both markets. However, on investment, the agreement contains a deliberate void, reflecting India's cautious stance toward ISDS rather than an oversight. Businesses should view these two areas as having markedly different risk profiles: on one hand, confidently formulating IP strategies based on Chapter 13 protections; on the other, recognizing when making cross-border investments that treaty-based investor protections are currently not part of the UK–India framework. Further background context on the broader trade architecture can be found in the press release on CETA from the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry.