An Indian brand finalises a new product, appoints a contract manufacturer and prepares packaging carrying its trademark. During the compliance review, one question suddenly creates confusion: Should the BIS licence be obtained by the brand owner or by the factory manufacturing the product?
For most BIS product-certification routes, the answer is straightforward. The actual manufacturer associated with the manufacturing premises normally applies for and holds the BIS licence. A brand owner that only owns the trademark, markets the product or purchases finished goods from another factory does not automatically become the manufacturer for BIS purposes.
The distinction becomes especially important for private-label businesses, importers, OEM arrangements and companies sourcing the same brand from several factories.
BIS certification should therefore be mapped around four things before production begins:
product + applicable standard + certification scheme + manufacturing location.
The brand name is important, but it does not normally replace the manufacturing source.
Under BIS Scheme I, BIS states that the licence to use the Standard Mark is granted to a manufacturer after its manufacturing and testing capabilities and product conformity have been assessed.
Scheme II follows the same underlying manufacturing principle. The February 2026 amendment states that the manufacturer identifies the applicable standard or requirements, confirms its manufacturing and testing capabilities, identifies its models and brands and submits the application. The resulting licence document identifies the manufacturer address together with the approved brand and models.
This leads to an important distinction.
The factory building itself is not technically the licence holder. The manufacturer operating the relevant manufacturing premises is the licence holder.
If ABC Appliances Pvt. Ltd. owns a brand but XYZ Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. physically manufactures the product at its factory, XYZ will normally be the relevant manufacturing applicant unless ABC itself qualifies as the manufacturer under the applicable scheme.
The exact arrangement should still be checked against the applicable Quality Control Order, Indian Standard and BIS product-specific guidance because BIS operates several conformity-assessment schemes.
BIS certification is not simply a trademark approval.
For factory-based certification, BIS is interested in whether the manufacturer can repeatedly produce goods that conform to the applicable Indian Standard.
Under Scheme I, this can involve assessment of:
BIS also conducts surveillance after a Scheme I licence is granted to verify continued manufacturing and testing capability.
This explains why a marketing office cannot ordinarily substitute for the manufacturing facility simply because the marketing company owns the trademark.
A brand owner may control the product design, packaging, pricing and sales network. The manufacturer controls the production operation against which BIS conformity is established.
Both parties have compliance responsibilities, but their roles are different.
Consider a typical private-label supply chain:
| Party | Typical role |
|---|---|
| Brand owner | Owns or controls the trademark and sells the product |
| Manufacturer | Produces the product and maintains manufacturing conformity |
| Factory | Physical manufacturing location used by the manufacturer |
| Importer | Imports the goods into India |
| AIR | Represents an eligible foreign manufacturer in India where applicable |
| BIS-recognised laboratory | Conducts applicable product testing |
Confusing these roles is one of the easiest ways to structure a BIS application incorrectly.
For example, an Indian importer may be purchasing 100 percent of a foreign factory’s production for India and selling it exclusively under its own trademark. That commercial relationship does not automatically make the importer the manufacturer.
For foreign manufacturing locations, BIS states that foreign manufacturers can apply under FMCS and that applications are tied to the product/Indian Standard and manufacturing location.
There is no single certification procedure for every BIS-regulated product. Businesses should first identify the product and applicable QCO and then determine the conformity-assessment scheme. BIS currently lists compulsory products across multiple schemes, including Scheme I, Scheme II, Scheme IV and Scheme X.
Scheme I is strongly factory-oriented.
The BIS Conformity Assessment Regulations provide for a licence covering products manufactured at a manufacturing premises. BIS’s current product-certification guidance also states that a manufacturer must possess appropriate manufacturing infrastructure, process controls and testing capabilities.
Therefore, when a brand owner outsources manufacturing under an ISI-mark arrangement, the contract manufacturer will ordinarily be the relevant manufacturing licence holder.
The brand owner’s trademark relationship should still be properly documented and the particular product manual and BIS requirements should be checked before markings or packaging are finalised.
Scheme II is particularly relevant to many electronics and IT products.
The February 2026 conformity-assessment amendment makes the manufacturer central to the application. It requires the manufacturer to identify the applicable requirements, confirm manufacturing/testing capability and declare model numbers and brand names.
It also provides that the licence document issued by BIS identifies the manufacturer address, brand and model numbers.
This means a brand cannot simply take an R-number associated with one factory and assume that products manufactured somewhere else are automatically covered.
The factory, product category, model scope and brand information must correspond to the applicable registration.
Scheme X also demonstrates why manufacturing location matters.
BIS’s current Scheme X FAQ states that separate applications are required where the same product is manufactured at different factory locations.
There is also an interesting product-specific example. For low-voltage switchgear and controlgear, BIS states that the licence is based on product type or variety for a particular manufacturing location, while brand information is declared to BIS for information purposes.
That answer should not be automatically applied to every Scheme X product. Product manuals and sector-specific guidance remain important.
Where manufacturing takes place outside India, the Indian brand owner or importer should not assume that it can simply obtain a domestic manufacturing licence for the overseas facility.
BIS’s FMCS guidance states that manufacturers whose factories are located outside India can apply and that separate applications are required for different manufacturing locations as applicable.
The foreign manufacturer may also need an Authorised Indian Representative under the applicable scheme.
The AIR represents the foreign manufacturer. It does not automatically become the manufacturer merely because it handles BIS correspondence in India.
Yes, but the important question is whether the brand owner is also the manufacturer under the applicable BIS scheme.
Consider two businesses.
Business A owns a trademark, handles marketing and purchases completely manufactured products from an independent factory.
Business B owns the trademark and also operates the manufacturing facility where the regulated product is produced.
Business B may be both brand owner and manufacturer. There is therefore no conflict between brand ownership and licence ownership.
Business A has a different structure. Its trademark ownership alone does not normally replace the manufacturing entity in a manufacturer-based BIS certification scheme.
The safest question is therefore not:
“Who owns the brand?”
It is:
“Which legal entity manufactures this product at the manufacturing location being declared to BIS?”
This is where private-label businesses frequently underestimate BIS compliance.
Suppose an Indian appliance brand has one product range manufactured at factories in:
The fact that every product carries the same brand does not mean one manufacturing approval can simply be moved between these facilities.
For Scheme X, BIS expressly states that separate applications are required for different factory locations even where the product and Indian Standard remain the same. Foreign manufacturer guidance also states that certification applications are factory-location specific.
The same manufacturing-location principle is embedded in Scheme I and Scheme II.
A sourcing team should therefore map every SKU against its actual factory before placing orders.
The reverse arrangement is also common.
One OEM factory may manufacture identical or similar products for 5 different Indian brands.
This does not necessarily mean that 5 entirely independent production facilities must be certified. But the treatment of brands varies by conformity-assessment scheme and product-specific requirements.
Under the revised Scheme II, brand names form part of the registration framework and the regulation contains specific provisions governing applications involving different brands and brand ownership.
For the specific Scheme X low-voltage switchgear example, BIS states that licensing is based on product type/variety and manufacturing location and that brand details are declared for information.
Therefore, businesses should not apply one universal “multiple brands” rule across ISI, CRS and Scheme X.
Before testing, establish:
manufacturer + factory + product + standard + models + brand ownership.
Only then should the application structure be finalised.
A brand owner may change suppliers because of price, capacity, delivery performance or product quality.
Commercially, this may simply look like replacing Vendor A with Vendor B.
From a BIS perspective, it can be a much bigger change because the manufacturing location on which certification is based has changed.
A BIS licence held for production at one manufacturing premises should not be treated as a transferable certification asset that the brand owner can freely carry to another independent factory.
Before transferring production, check whether the new manufacturing location requires:
The exact requirements depend on the product and scheme.
A factory change should therefore be treated as a regulatory change-control event, not only a procurement decision.
| Compliance activity | Manufacturer / factory | Brand owner | Importer / AIR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confirm manufacturing location | Primary | Verify | Verify |
| BIS application | Usually primary | Support | Support where applicable |
| Manufacturing capability | Primary | Review commercially | Not manufacturer |
| Product testing coordination | Primary | May coordinate | May coordinate |
| Trademark permission | Use correctly | Primary | Verify |
| Model configuration control | Primary | Primary | Verify shipment |
| BIS marking implementation | Primary | Approve artwork consistency | Verify |
| Factory surveillance support | Primary | Support if required | Support |
| Supplier/factory change review | Notify and coordinate | Primary commercial control | Verify before import |
| Licence validity/scope check | Primary | Verify | Verify |
This matrix is a practical allocation model rather than a substitute for the applicable BIS scheme or QCO.
A BIS compliance review should happen before mass production, not when cargo is ready to leave the factory.
For every regulated product, verify:
Do not verify only the BIS logo or certificate PDF.
The most important question is whether the specific product being purchased, carrying the specific brand, is being manufactured at the manufacturing location covered by the valid BIS approval.
Consider an illustrative Indian electronics brand sourcing power adaptors from an overseas OEM.
The first factory already holds BIS registration for another customer’s brand. The Indian brand therefore assumes that it can simply place its trademark on the same product and start importing.
Before production, the compliance team checks the proposed arrangement.
It finds three issues:
First, the Indian brand has not yet been properly incorporated into the applicable BIS brand/application structure.
Second, 2 of the proposed models use different safety-critical components from the models already tested.
Third, the supplier intends to shift half the production to another factory belonging to the same corporate group.
Although the commercial supplier has not changed, the manufacturing source has.
The correct approach is to map the brand, models, testing and both manufacturing locations before commercial shipment rather than relying on the supplier’s existing certificate.
The example illustrates why “our supplier already has BIS” is not enough information.
Trademark ownership and manufacturing certification are separate concepts.
A common parent company does not automatically make different manufacturing locations one BIS factory.
If the certification structure is incorrect, finished inventory may require relabelling, retesting or other corrective action before compliant market entry.
The commercial product should remain aligned with the tested and approved configuration.
The AIR represents the foreign manufacturer in India where applicable. Representation and manufacturing are different roles.
Validity alone is not sufficient. Check factory, product, standard, models/varieties and applicable brand information.
A brand owner can hold the relevant licence where it is also the actual manufacturer under the applicable certification scheme. If production is entirely outsourced to an independent contract manufacturer, the manufacturing entity associated with the factory will normally be the applicant.
It is more accurate to say that the licence is issued to the manufacturer and is linked to the relevant manufacturing premises and approved product scope. The physical factory building itself is not the legal licence holder.
Do not assume so. BIS certification is strongly manufacturing-location based, and BIS expressly requires separate applications for different factory locations under routes such as Scheme X and FMCS. Product-specific requirements should always be checked.
Potentially, but the way brands are handled depends on the applicable scheme and product. Scheme II contains specific brand/application provisions, while BIS has different treatment for certain Scheme X products.
For manufacturer-based foreign certification, the overseas manufacturer remains central to certification. BIS’s FMCS guidance identifies foreign manufacturers as the entities that can apply.
At minimum, verify the product classification, Indian Standard, QCO, applicable BIS scheme, manufacturer’s legal identity, manufacturing location, current certification scope, models/varieties and brand arrangement.
For a brand owner, the biggest BIS risk often appears before the application itself. It begins when the product, factory and applicant structure are selected incorrectly.
Green Permits can review the proposed supply chain before testing or bulk manufacturing and help businesses determine:
A pre-application review can be particularly useful for private-label brands, importers and businesses sourcing the same product from multiple manufacturers.
📞 +91 78350 06182
📧 wecare@greenpermits.in
👉 Book a Consultation with Green Permits
