• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

India: Poor Man’s Intellectual Property Is Hijacked

28/09/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch 5 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and are not associated with Intellectual Property Watch. IP-Watch expressly disclaims and refuses any responsibility or liability for the content, style or form of any posts made to this forum, which remain solely the responsibility of their authors.

By R.S. Praveen Raj, Senior Scientist, CSIR-NIIST

Geographical Indications (GI) is an intellectual property right (IPR), which identifies “goods” as originating in a certain region where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Kashmir Pashmina, Darjeeling tea and Kancheepuram silk have all been granted GIs. The best internationally known examples of geographical indications are those used for wines and spirits. For instance, the geographical indication Champagne is used to indicate that a special kind of sparkling wine originates in the Champagne region of France. In the same way, Cognac is used for brandy from the French region around the town of Cognac.

However, geographical indications are also used for products other than wines and spirits, such as tobacco from Cuba, or for cheeses such as Roquefort. They may also be used for industrial products, as Sheffield is for steel. GIs focus on the triple relationship between a product, its special qualities and geographical territory of origin.

GI serves as a notice to the customer that the product comes from a particular geographical region. Quite often, Geographical appellation may imply a certain quality, which the customer may be looking for. In India, GI is often termed as the poor man’s IP because most of the applicants for GIs are farmers, artisans and craftsmen from the lower economic strata or an organization representing them.

Hence, GI is considered as a collective community right. Indian Parliament passed the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act in 1999 to afford legal protection to the GIs in India. ‘Goods’ means any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry, and includes food stuff. Food stuff is covered, but only if it is any of the following — agricultural goods, natural goods, manufactured goods, goods of handicraft or goods of industry. The legislative intent of GI statute is protecting the interest of the genuine producers from the specified geographical region. Attaching a GI tag also helps in promoting the sale of goods in the international market.

It is a healthy trend that the awareness on GI is on the rise in our country. However, the misuse of GI legislation also is rampant. Recent past has witnessed many instances of inappropriate GI Registrations.

Tirupati laddu

Tirupati laddu

The most popular news is the GI tag secured by Tirumala Thiruppathi Devasthanams (TTD) for its famous ‘Tirupati Laddu’. TTD, the trustees of world’s richest temple on Tirumala Hills claimed that the GI registration would help them in harnessing the black-marketing of laddus by some vendors in the temple town, who sell fake laddus under the name of ‘Tirupati laddu’. TTD’s stand is that GI tag to Tirupati laddu would help them to curb all these problems as violators will be subjected to punishment under GI laws. TTD’s GI application says that the laddu derives its sanctity, reputation and uniqueness from its being offered as naivedyam (offering) to the Lord. The fundamental question arising here is ‘whether sanctity is a GI attribute?’ The GI grant to Tiruppathi laddu is clearly an indication of commercialization of faith. Mixing IPR with religion will have serious consequences in the future and it hurts the religious sentiments. Also, TTD is the sole producer of Tirupati laddu and sole beneficiary of its sales. It is totally wrong to extend GI protection to the monopoly held by TTD, as GIs are meant to protect collective community rights.

A similar attempt by Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), to get GI status for gas pumped from its Krishna-Godavari (KG) fields and petroleum products made at its Jamnagar refinery, was however unsuccessful. Like Tirupati Laddu, the application was filed by a powerful enterprise to safeguard its commercial interests. The four Jamnagar applications were advertised in the Geographical Indications Journal, the official journal of the GI Registry, inviting possible objections to the products being registered for GIs, according to procedure. Subsequently, the GI Registry received four oppositions filed by three lawyers and one Indian legal academic based in London, against the applications. Although the application was subsequently abandoned by RIL, the fact that such an application was allowed to proceed till the stage of advertisement goes on to show the lax standards of the examination process of the GI Registry which in turn may have grave implications for the future of GI governance in India.

Hyderabadi Haleem

Hyderabadi Haleem

The GI granted to Tirupati laddu continues to be an inspiration for many other meaningless GI’s. Hyderabad Haleem, a popular dish made predominantly during Ramzan has obtained GI registration. GI owners claim that the haleem makers outside Hyderabad will not be able to sell their product as Hyderabad Haleem and the ones that are made within the city, will be subjected to strict quality standards.

Now the public is under the impression that any dish is eligible for GI. GI Registration in India is more like the promotion spree of populism. And now the politicians from respective states would line up for supporting their GI Claim for dishes named after some place in their state. Tomorrow, there may be many meaningless GIs like chicken chettinadu, Malabar chicken etc.

If we allow this practice, the access to freshly prepared food will become a thing of the past. We will have to be satisfied with malabar chicken available in packets, when you order it in a restaurant. (Like packaged drinking water, Coca Cola, Pepsi etc.). How many of our restaurant owners would dare to fight a legal battle against powerful money mafia holding the GI certificate? Suppose if they dare to do that, then our courts will be flooded with GI cases.

It is shocking to observe that the GI claims in the case of RIL went up to the stage of acceptance and the other one in respect of Tirupati laddu to the extent of registration. These days, anything named after a place is given a GI tag and that position is incorrect.

Ultimately, the purpose of GI is not to create monopoly. Subjugating the laws of the land to monopoly practices is very dangerous. IPRs with reasonable restrictions are allowed only because it is essential for the industrial growth of the country. Government authorities should show due diligence and extreme caution in governing IPR laws. Letting IPRs to take the form of monopoly is detrimental to the interests of a democratic nation.


R.S. Praveen Raj is a former Indian patent examiner and social activist. Currently, he is working as Senior Scientist in India’s premier research organisation CSIR. He played a key role in devising IPR Policy of Kerala 2008, which moots a nuanced approach for protection of traditional knowledge. He also campaigns against misuse of IP laws for Commercialisation of religious faith in India.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Creative Commons License"India: Poor Man’s Intellectual Property Is Hijacked" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Features, Inside Views, IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, Access to Knowledge/ Education, Asia/Pacific, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, Enforcement, English, Regional Policy, Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains, Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge, WIPO

Comments

  1. R.S. Praveen Raj says

    28/09/2015 at 4:37 pm

    Can we allow people to have monopoly on “knowledge” including knowledge of making something in Kitchen ? Does GI on Hyderabadi Haleem or Biriyani mean that you have to travel to Hyderabad to taste freshly prepared “Hyderabadi Biryani” or “Hyderabadi Haleem”, even though the chef in the nearest Hotel knows how to make it perfectly for You ?

    The latest news from India is fight between two states to secure GI tag for a sweet “RASAGULLA” http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kolkata/west-bengal-seeks-gi-tag-for-rasagolla/article7678371.ece

    I have two genuine doubts in this regard 1) Is GI Act meant for protecting legacy or skill ? 2) Will the taste of a “dish” or “sweet” change when it is made in another parts of the country ?

    Finally Which is more important ? Human Rights (Say Access to Fresh Food) or Intellectual Property Rights ?

    Reply
  2. Graham Dutfield says

    03/10/2015 at 11:57 am

    In Europe it is a similar problem, where single companies can sometime monopolise place names without real justification. There is a reasonable argument to be made that we should only provide designations or origin, due to the stricter criteria and not geographical indications at all, whose basis for protection is often quite flimsy under EU law. If there is no essential link between product and place but a vaguer one that is hardly substantiated in the application but is to be assumed because the applicant says so, the opportunities for abuse are pretty substantial. It should be noted that Sheffield Steel is not yet a GI because in Europe the system is still confined to wines, spirits and agricultural products. However, there is a strong possibility the European Commission will legislate to extend GIs to non-agricultural products. It remains to be seen whether this is a good idea, at least in the European context, especially if the criteria is going to be lax.

    Reply
  3. ‘Glen at AP lawyers’. says

    11/01/2016 at 12:36 pm

    We seem to be in a situation where many of the freedoms of the past are quickly being eroded.

    Reply
  4. R S Praveen Raj says

    18/05/2016 at 5:05 pm

    One recent article in ‘Telegraph India’ about GI for basmati rice and a few other GIs from India (see the link below)

    http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160313/jsp/7days/story_74186.jsp

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. India Struggles with Improper GI Registrations | Intellectual Property Attorneys | Greenberg & Lieberman says:
    25/11/2015 at 12:29 am

    […] India is not a monolithic country by any stretch of the imagination. There are many regions with unique products. India is also a poor country, and GI registration has been used to protect the livelihoods of poor farmers and artisans who would never be able to protect their own wares on the wages they make. However, a new trend in India is stretching the boundaries of this idea and could put it at risk. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.