Geographical Indication Projection: Issues and

Challenges in India
Special Mid Semester Assignment Submitted on Intellectual Property Law

Submitted To:

Md. Aamir Khan

Associate Professor of law

(Faculty of Intellectual Property Law)

Submitted By:

Shantanu Vaishnav

Roll No. 142, Semester VI, Section B

B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

Submitted On:

20-07-2020

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY NAVA RAIPUR ATAL

NAGAR, C.G
 I

DECLARATION
I, Shantanu Vaishnav hereby declare that this project on topic ‘Geographical Indication
Protection: Issues and Challenges in India” is purely my original work and the all the works
included in this project are adequately cited and referenced to original source.

Shantanu Vaishnav

Semester VI, Section B

B.A. LL.B.

Roll No. 142

 II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Practical realisation of this project is obligated assistance of many persons. I expressly pay
my deepest gratitude to Md. Aamir Khan for his consistent supervision and guidance throughout
the completion of whole project.

I am also thankful to University and Vice Chancellor for providing extensive resources in library
through internet. I would be grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this
project report.

Shantanu Vaishnav

Semester VI, Section B

B.A. LL.B.

Roll No 142.
 III

Table of Contents

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. II

Chapter 1 | Introduction and Research Methodology ..................................................................... 1

1.1. | Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2. | Research Objective ............................................................................................................. 2

1.3. | Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 2

1.4. | Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.5. | Limitation ........................................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 2 | Geographical Indication Act of India: An Overview ................................................... 3

Chapter 3 | Issue and Challenges Related to Geographical Indication in India .............................. 5

3.1 | Status of registration ............................................................................................................ 5

3.2 | Role of the State .................................................................................................................. 6

3.3 |Definitional ambiguities-geographical area and representing the interests of the producers9

3.4 | Appropriation of rights in the name of Divine affairs: the case of Payyannur Pavithra
Ring ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 4 | Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 15

Chapter 5 | Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 16

 1

Chapter 1 | Introduction and Research Methodology

1.1. | Introduction
Geographical Indications (GI) is an important intellectual property right used in the realm of
trade to highlight the origin of the product which is exclusive to the territory, region, or locality
where it is produced. It is a signifier of quality through the use of origin and protects the interests
of both the producers and the consumers. Set in the context of the legislation of Geographical
Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, this paper seeks to examine the
debates and challenges in the use of GIs within the legal framework in India. The current section
throws light on the economic rationale for GI followed by the section(s) that highlight the main
features of the legislation in India and the status of registration. This is followed by sections,
which discuss in detail the major issues and challenges in the use and registration of GIs in India
with appropriate examples.

GI as a land-based indication has been in vogue for a long period of time. The basic purpose in
the use of GI is to differentiate goods on the basis of their geographical origin. Thus, through the
use of GIs, information about the quality of the product attributable to natural or human factors
which are specific to a locality or region is communicated to the consumers. GI as a collective
right is distinct from other forms of intellectual property rights.

It is observes that there are several studies which suggest that GIs are a collective good or a club
good. The main characteristics of a club good are:

(i)Only those producers who adhere to the specifications of the GI product are allowed to use the
indication and (ii) the use of GI by one does not diminish the same for another. This underscores
the problems of collective action.

It requires that all producers along the supply chain adhere to the quality standard which
signifies the reputation. So any "opportunistic behavior on the part of any producer can
jeopardize the reputation of the indication" (Prisoner's dilemma).' Thus, there are problems of
"free riding" wherein producers do not conform to the quality standards of the products but
manage to "free ride" on the reputation of the goods. Trademarks, on the other hand, identify a
 2

particular group of traders from others, but GIs is a "general descriptor of all producers/traders
within a designated geographical area for a particular good with certain qualities". Thus, all
producers/traders from within a defined geographical area can enjoy the use of the GI if they
qualify. Thus, GIs are certainly a collective monopoly right. It excludes members from either
within or outside a geographical area.

1.2. | Research Objective

The project has following Objectives:

1. To understand the concept of Geographical Indication.

2. To understand the issues and challenges with geographical indication in India.

1.3. | Research Questions

1. What did we understand by term Geographical Indication?

2. What are issues and challenges pertaining with geographical indication in India?

1.4. | Methodology
The Nature of study is descriptive in nature. The study is done with the help of secondary data.
The secondary information has been obtained from published sources such as books, journals,
websites, research works etc.

1.5. | Limitation
The project is limited to the general study of issues and challenges related geographical
indication in India and the project only deals with this topic through examples of various cases
related to the subject.
 3

Chapter 2 | Geographical Indication Act of India: An Overview

There has been no separate legislation in India until the Geographical Indications of Goods
(Registration and Protection Act), 1999 which governed the use of GIs. Prior to this, GIs were
governed by common law principles. The GI Act was followed by the Geographical Indications
of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 (hereafter GI Rules). Under the GI Act,
which came into force on September 15, 2003, the Central Government established the
Geographical Indications Registry with all-India jurisdiction at Chennai, wherein the producers
can apply for registering their respective GIs. The GI is administered by the Controller General
of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks-who is the Registrar of Geographical Indications. Section
2(3) of the GI Act defines geographical indications as follows:

"Geographical indication", in relation to goods, means an indication which identifies such goods
as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in
the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation
or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and in
case where such goods are manufactured goods one of the activities of either the production or of
processing or preparation of the goods concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality,
as the case may be.”1

The above definition of GI in the Indian Act enables non-geographic names such as "Basmati" or
"Alphonso" to be considered as a GI if the source of origin can be substantiated. Moreover, the
definition also takes into account different stages in the production activity-from processing to
manufacturing and emphasizes on human factors to ensure the protection of various GIs in the
realm of handicraft and hand woven textile industry of India. In addition, while the TRIPS
provision under Article 23 relates to wines and spirits alone; under the Indian Act, the Central
Government has been given the discretion to accord similar protection to other categories of
goods also, by notifying such goods in the Official Gazette. The Government of India vide its
notification has extended additional protection to wines and spirits.2

1
Section 2(3) Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection Act), 1999
2
Geographical Indications Journal No. 44 (2012): 64
 4

As per the GI Act, the registration is undertaken in two parts: Part A relates to the registration of
GI and Part B relates to the registration of authorized users/proprietors such as names, addresses,
and descriptions indicated.

The Act stipulates that the application for registration can be moved by "any association of
persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law for time
being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous
of registering a Gl" and has to apply in writing in the prescribed form in triplicate along with the
prescribed fee. The cost of application for each class of good is Rs. 5,000. A detailed glance at
the GI Act and Rules indicates that the entire process of filing for registration is time-consuming
and requires legal counsel. In case of no objection or opposition, the permissible time limit is that
of 9 months for registration (3 months for acceptance from the constitution of the expert
committee, 3 months for advertising from the date of examination report, 3 months from the date
of advertising for opposition) depending on the time. Nonetheless, there is no minimum time
limit mentioned in the Act or Rules for the constitution of the committee from the date of receipt
of application. Similarly, in case of an objection in the course of examination, there is no
mention of the time limit to inform the applicant about the details of the objection whereas the
time limit for the applicant to respond to the queries is clearly mentioned. If there is opposition to
the advertized application, the paperwork for the application to be registered gets unwieldy and
the time prescribed could go well beyond 24 months. Moreover, the registration has to be
renewed every ten years.

The application for renewal must be made at any time not more than 6 months before the expiry
of the last registration of the GI or the authorized user. It must be filed by the registered
proprietor, failing which by any of the authorized users on record, as the case may be. If at the
expiration of the last registration of a GI or an authorized user, the renewal fees have not been
paid, the Registrar may remove the GI or the authorized user as the case may be from the register
and advertise the fact forthwith in the Journal.
 5

Chapter 3 | Issue and Challenges Related to Geographical

Indication in India
Intellectual Property Right as a discipline is quite in new in India and geographical indication
with compare to other sub disciplines of IPR is not established like copyrights and patents etc.,
due to this there are still many unexplored channels in the sea of geographical indication and
with time and with new cases coming up the subject is also explored therefore, to understand the
issues and challenges of geographical indication the proper way is through understanding the
various examples from past related with the subject and the upcoming sections will tried to
explain the topic in this manner.

3.1 | Status of registration

Since 2003, the GI Registry in Chennai has received applications from different categories of
goods across India and abroad for registration. The total number of applications stands at 575 as
on March 15, 2017. The number of applications filed increased from 33 in 2006-07 to 148 in
2011-12 and then steadily declined to 17 in 2015-16 while it increased to 30 till December 2016.
The registrations too increased from 3 in 2006-07 to 45 in 2008-09 while it remained below 30
for the rest of the years. The fluctuations in registration from year to year are due to the time lag
involved in the process of registration-from application, scrutiny, acceptance, advertisement in
Journal, opposition if any, and finally registration. The total number of registrations stands at 282
as on November 30, 2016. These included 12 registrations from outside India. Of the 282
registered, one can discern several categories of products-agricultural (82), handicrafts (90-
inclusive of 15 logos of registered products), textiles (81 inclusive of seven logos of registered
products), 19 (manufactured which included nine products from abroad), food stuff (nine of
which three were foreign goods) and natural goods (1). Alcoholic beverages account for the
majority of registered goods from abroad-Peruvian Pisco, Champagne, Napa Valley wine, Scotch
Whisky, Cognac, Porto, Douro, Tequila, and Prosecco whereas food stuff included processed
cheese namely Prosciutto di Parm, Parmigiano Reggiano, and Asiago.

The surge in registrations over time could well be due to the growing awareness about the GI
registration and specific policies of the State, but also raised concerns over the examination and
scrutiny of applications. This also led to tightening of procedures for granting of GI at the
 6

Registry and could explain the steady number of registrations in recent years. Nonetheless, there
has been little awareness in the mass media over the popularization of use of GI and most of the
efforts have come from government or government supported organizations who have been
either facilitators or proprietors or from NGOs who work at the grassroots. In this context, the
following section(s) highlight the major debates and controversies in the realm of GI in India.

3.2 | Role of the State

Increasingly, GI proprietors have been government departments or statutory boards or enterprises
in the initial years who were not directly involved in the production of the goods. A quick glance
at the proprietors of the registered GIs indicate that Government Departments, Boards, Academic
Institutions, and entities supported by Government constitute more than half of the total
proprietors for registered goods (excluding manufactured and foodstuff) from India followed by
societies (cooperatives and producers) (17%), associations (12%), Trust/NGOs/Foundation (5%),
farmer producer organizations and Universities (10%), and combinations thereof between these
various types of (6%).3 This raises the pertinent question as to whether the State is qualified to be
a proprietor of GI goods. Being a collective right, the prime responsibility of the proprietor is to
represent the interest of the producers. Moreover, the approval of the proprietor is a pre-requisite
to be accepted as an authorized user under Part B of the GI Act. Thus, the proprietor holds the
power to include and exclude users. In this context, one has to note that the GI Act stipulates that
the applicant must be "association of persons or producers or any organization or authority
established by or under any law" who represents the interest of the producers and that the
statement of case should contain particulars of the producers on whose behalf the application is
being moved. The "producer" is defined in the Act as any person who: (i) if such goods are
agricultural goods, producers the goods and includes the person who processes or packages such
goods; (ii) if such goods are natural goods, exploits the goods; (iii) if such goods are handicrafts
or industrial goods, makes or manufactures the goods and includes any person who trades or
deals in such production, exploitation, making or manufacturing, as the case may be, of the
goods.

3
Compiled from GI journals and GI registry available at http://ipindia.nic.in/girindia/
 7

Thus, while there is clarity about association of persons or producers mentioned in the Act, the
question of whether a government enterprise/statutory body/department can become a legitimate
applicant and whether they can truly represent the interests of the producers even if they are
engaged in processing, packaging, manufacturing, or trading of the goods or products needs to be
explored and examined in detail. In this context, it is interesting to look into the case of Toda
Embroidery.

GI application for Toda Embroidery was filed by Toda Nalavaazhvu Sangam and the Keystone
Foundation (KF) in September 2008. The former (TNS) is a society legally established under
Registrar of Udgamandalam, the Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu by the members of the Toda tribe
community to work for their progress while KF is a Public Charitable Trust presently involved in
promoting and developing Toda Embroidery among craftswomen. The application was accepted
after due consultations and was advertized in the GI Journal. On the basis of the advertisement,
opposition was filed by Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation stating that as an
apex body in charge of the development of handicrafts sector in Tamilnadu, they were the
"rightfully constituted body to that champions the cause and welfare of artisans in the State" and
hence the rightful proprietors or applicants. In this regard, various development assistance
programmes and support systems that were extended to the artisans of which Toda community
members were also beneficiaries were mentioned. Further, they pointed out that Poompuhar has
been the Commissionerate of Handicrafts since 2006-07 under the state government which
focuses on the development of artisans in handicrafts sector in a holistic manner. In these
circumstances, they were "shocked and disturbed to learn about the Applicant's move vide the
application to the Geographical Indication on Toda Embroidery" and claimed it had been filed
"with the sole and mala fide intention" of monopolizing a right which was rightfully theirs. They
further opposed the application on the ground that the applicants did not represent the interests of
the artisans/actual producers but the manufacturers instead. In the counterstatement, both TNS
and KF clarified their position and stated that while they indeed represented the interests of the
producers, they had no objection to Poompuhar being an authorized user since they too
represented the interest of the producers. Subsequently, the Order from the Registrar of GI
pointed out that the applicants have been able to demonstrate that they are legal entities who
represent the interest of producers and hence their application is legitimate. Further, the Order
clarified that the opponent Poompuhar also represented the interests of the producers and in such
 8

cases, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in its order4 indicated that the persons interested
may be granted with status of co-applicant. The ultimate aim of the litigants in such cases is to
protect the interest of the producers, and in view of the identity of minds of parties in this case,
the tribunal granted registered proprietor status to the applicant and the opponent Poompuhar
was granted with the status of coapplicant.

Further, it was directed that at least 20 authorized users relating to the product were to be
registered within 6 months from the date of order. In the case of Toda embroidery, the State
agency raised an objection claiming to be the legitimate proprietor since it represented the
interests of all and thus was granted the status of co-applicant. Similar engagements by the State
in various capacities-Government Departments, Enterprises, Boards, Apex Cooperative
Organizations, Patent Information Centres-can be seen across registered goods as well as
applications pending registrations. A few examples registered GIs, the proprietors of which are
government or supported by government institutions, are Darjeeling Tea, Assam Tea, Nilgiri Tea
(Tea Board of India); Monsooned Malabar Arabica Coffee, Monsooned Malabar

Robusta Coffee (Coffee Board); Mango Malihabadi Dusseheri (National Horticulture Board);
Malabar Pepper, Coorg Green Cardamom, Alleppey Green Cardamom, Byadagi Chilli, Guntur
Sanam Chilli (Spice Board); Udupi Brinjal, Mysore Jasmine, Udupi Jasmine, Appemidi Mango
(Department of Horticulture, Government of Karnataka) and so on. Nonetheless, the labeling of
government as a representative of interests of all producers might not always hold good. This is
especially so when they are involved in the process of production and marketing (through
cooperatives formed by producers of agricultural and non-agricultural goods). This might lead to
favoring those producers linked with the government and excluding others. The example of
Mysore Silk GI and Kancheepuram Saree wherein the registered proprietors (Karnataka State
Silk Industries Corporation (KSIC) in case of the former and Department of Handlooms and
Textiles, Government of Tamil Nadu in case of latter) cannot claim exclusivity. There were
several producers engaged in production of these goods outside the ambit of the registered
proprietors and hence could not claim property rights. Marie-Vivien also suggests that producers
could also feel excluded when the government is not a direct producer. This could be true in case
of a number of agricultural products being filed either by state government departments

4
Intellectual Property Appellate Board , OA/2/2010/GI/CH
 9

(Horticulture) or universities (Kerala Agricultural University for Pokkali/Navra/Wayanad

Jeerakasala/Wayanad Gandhakasala Rice varieties for instance).

It is clear from the above discussion that State through its various agencies plays a pro-active
role in the registration of GIs in India. This is quite contrary to the legal framework in operation
in other parts of the world, such as the French legal framework, influenced to a large extent by
the European legal framework, wherein there has been a steady withdrawal of the state involving
larger role for the producer groups

3.3 |Definitional ambiguities-geographical area and representing

the interests of the producers
In this section, ambiguities with regard to demarcation of geographical area and inadequacies
with respect to representing the interest of producers are discussed by highlighting select cases of
GI application and registration.

Five applications for petroleum goods produced by Reliance Industries Limited were filed in
September 2005 which was advertized in the GI journal. The oppositions against the applications
however raised concerns about (i) exclusivity of these goods; (ii) lack of clarity over specificity
of the products due to geographical origin; and (iii) ambiguity over the "collective interests of
producers" who were represented by RIL. Interestingly, the application had cited ISO standards
to establish the uniqueness and specificity of the product. Subsequently, RIL withdrew its
applications in respect of those from Jamnagar refinery while the application on the Krishna-
Godavari gas was treated as abandoned by the GI Registry.

With regard to Basmati rice, the application was first filed in 2004 by Heritage Foundation. The
foundation, which represents rice millers and exporters, was refused the GI tag by the Registry
on the grounds that it was technically flawed. However, it is also argued that that as a private
trust, the Foundation did not adequately represent the primary stakeholders-the cultivators of
Basmati. Even before the rejection of this application, the Government of India, in October 2008,
had empowered the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority
(APEDA) to register and protect intellectual property rights for certain special agriculture
products such as Basmati rice in India and elsewhere. In fact, APEDA Rules were amended to
 10

include measures for registration and protection of Geographical Indications as required under
the GI Act and such other Intellectual Property Rights in relation to Basmati rice or similar rights
in relation to such other Scheduled products, which the Central Government may notify.5

Similarly, in case of Ganjam Goat Ghee and Poddar Diamond too, the applicants could not
adequately demonstrate that they represented the interest(s) of the producers. The application for
Ganjam Goat Ghee filed by Orissa Veterinary College, OUAT in July 2009 was moved by an
individual under a specific project titled All India Coordinated Research Project on Goat
Improvement carried out by the Department of Animal Breeding & Genetics, Orissa Veterinary
College under Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology situated in Bhubaneswar and
was thus refused the GI tag since s(he) did not represent the producer group(s). Likewise, the
application for Poddar Diamond was abandoned due to lack of prosecution. The applicant was a
private entity and could not provide enough evidence to show that the application was filed in the
interest of the producers.

3.4 | Appropriation of rights in the name of Divine affairs: the

case of Payyannur Pavithra Ring
Yet another interesting aspect of GI registration in India has been the commodification and
commercialization of belief in the name of GI. The cases in point are the registration and
subsequent remand of proprietorship of Payyannur Pavithra Ring and registration of Tirupati
Laddu.' This section discusses in detail the case of Payyannur Pavithra ring. The application for
the GI was moved by Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans & Development Society (PPRADS)
(C/O Ms. Lakshmi Jewellery). After due review and scrutiny, the consultative group
recommended the good for registration and it was advertized in the GI Journal. Subsequent to
this, a notice of opposition as filed by Mr. K. Balakrishnan (Proprietor Sree Lakshmi Jewellery)
against the grant of GI to the above-mentioned society.'6 The opponent pointed out that the
society was not representing the producers of the ring and hence cannot be give the sole
proprietorship. Moreover, only one among the members of the society (Mr. P. Venugopalan) was
privy to knowledge about the craftsmanship of the ring and others were businessmen. Even the

5
APEDA Rules 1986 S.O. 2835(E) (Amendments-4), New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry available at
http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/corporate-info/APEDA Rules/Rules_03122008.pdf
6
Compiled from GI journals and GI registry, http://ipindia.nic.in/girindia/
 11

former, it was pointed out, did not belong to the Choovatta Valappil (CV) family (the family
whom the applicant claimed had been traditionally preparing the rings). The opponent contested
that it was actually the Mavichery Thekke Veettil family who invented ring in 1794 and not 1792
as mentioned in the application. Most importantly, the notice of opposition pointed out that there
are many goldsmiths in Payyannur who are aware of the art of making the Payyannur "pavithra"
(pure) knot ring and hence the society cannot claim sole proprietorship. It was also referred to
that the manufactured ring is first offered to the deity of Lord Subrahmanya before use and hence
one cannot claim monopoly over matters of religious sentiments. Nonetheless, the opposition
was not sustained and the Registry's order7 gave the nod to the registration of the ring as GI. It
observed that the artisans were entitled to the registration and religious sentiment was not a
sufficient reason to bar registration. The Tribunal observed that the quality and style of
manufacturing was retained by different producers without loss of originality and hence was not
considered common to trade.

In response to this, Subhash Jewellery, Payyannur represented by C. V. Dayanandan had filed a

writ petition in the Madras High Court to quash the order of the GI registry allowing the
registration of the ring.8 However, the Madras High Court had dismissed the order on the ground
that the appellant should have appealed before the IPAB before filing the writ petition. In the
meantime, the application for registration for Payyannur ring was accepted and the certificate for
GI was issued. Nevertheless, following the dismissal of writ petition by the Madras High Court,
an appeal before the IPAB was filed by Subhash Jewellery. In November 2011, the counsel of
the appellant had appealed for a stay but given the fact that there was no ground for stay, the
IPAB instead instructed him to publish it in a popular Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi since
Payyannur was a small town in Kerala and artisans may not be aware of the proceedings.'9 This
led to several affidavits filed by Sri C.P.K. Raghavan, Secretary of Sree Choovatta Valappil
Tharavad Dharmadaiva Paripalana Trust formed by the members of the Tharavad. The
intervening petitioner had also submitted certain photographs which indicated that the PPRADS
was misusing the registration to secure benefit for his enterprise, M/s. Lakshmi Jewellery. One
among the several appeals included one from Mr. K. Balakrishnan, who had initially filed the

7
(2009 (41) PTC 719)
8
WP No. 897 of 2010
9
OA/2/2010/GI/CH and M.P.Nos 1/2010 & 269/2012 in OA/2/2010/GI/CH dated 14 November 2012, Intellectual
Property Appellate Board available in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/255-2012.htm accessed on May 2, 2013.
 12

opposition to the application, urging to allow the appeal. The said affidavit pointed out that many
cases were still pending before the honourable courts in Payyannur regarding the right of
ownership the ring and hence the appeal may be allowed. Moreover, it was pointed out that the
applicant of the registration themselves admit that the manufacturing of the ring takes place
under the aegis of the High Priest of the Subrahmanya Temple and hence it is a matter of
religious interest. Therefore, the application should not be allowed based on Section 9 (a) and (d)
of the GI Act. Based on these, IPAB directed the Registry to remove the 1st respondent/
applicant as well as the registered proprietor of the GI from the register and remanded the matter
to the GI Registrar.

The order noted that though there was no denial of the specific link between the product and the
said place of origin, the GI Act through Section 11 and various subsections emphasize on interest
of the producers. Since traders could also be producers in case of handicrafts and industrial
goods (under section 2(k) iii of the Act), the application moved by businessmen was not against
the procedures laid down in the GI Act; but the response to the Public Notice did indicate that the
interested persons had no knowledge about the application or the subsequent registration or
appeals. The Order, thus, took objection to the claim of the applicant (PPRADS) that they
represented the interests of the producer.

The Order also took serious note of the appellant's observation that the Consultative group did
not make a field visit to the place and that the quorum was not full. In this regard, the Order
referred to Rule 33 of the GI Rules which refers interalia to persons well versed in the varied
intricacies in the field. The Consultative Group on Payyannur Ring GI did not contain any
member who had expertise or familiarity with the craftsmanship of gold jewellery.10 The Order
maintained that one cannot ignore the word "this field" in Rule 33. It further suggested that the
report of the Consultative Group should be a comprehensive document to understand the process
of grant of GI including the list of persons consulted with names and details, brief account of
their statement, date of visit, details of materials collected. Most importantly, the Order remarked
that "In Intellectual Property Right related matters be it GI, Patents or Trademarks, the dispute is
really not inter-partes alone, there is always the issue of public interest." Thus, there were

10
OA/2/2010/GI/CH and M.P.Nos 1/2010 & 269/2012 in OA/2/2010/GI/CH dated 14
November 2012, Intellectual Property Appellate Board available in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/255-2012.htm
accessed on May 2, 2013)
 13

procedural lapses in the filing of the application and the incidence of other inadequacies in the
proceedings as well, it was indicated that the name of the applicant be remanded back from the
register.

Given the content of this Order, it is expected to influence the filing and proceedings of
application and registrations of GI. In no uncertain terms, the Order of IPAB has emphasized that
the main objective of the GI Act is the protection of interest of producers: most importantly the
primary producers who manufacture the goods. The Order acknowledged the fact that the Act is
in an initial stage and the interested parties would be unaware of the Law and hence detailed
directions especially on dissemination of information as envisaged in the Land Acquisition Act
has been suggested. The Order also observed that since GI Journal was not accessed by the
public, advertising in the Journal would not be as effective as a public notice in vernacular
language analogous to the one in Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, the Order observed that it
was important to display the details of the application "in prominent places in the territory,
region or locality as the case may be," to bring it to the notice of those who are directly engaged
in different stages of production activities. This directive becomes especially significant given
the fact that majority of the registrations and applications are being made by government bodies
and this could undermine the interests of the producers even though the government bodies like
Poompuhar stake claim citing the protection of interested parties.11 Nonetheless, the Order did
not raise any objections to the fact that it is a matter of religious faith-the ring is offered to Lord
Subrahmanya before use. In fact, the Order mentions that "the name of territory-Payyannur-
derives its origin from the words Oor of the Payyan i.e. the land of Lord Subrahmanya and it is
believed that the Pavithra Knot helps to activate the Kundalini sakti" and thereby concurs with
the fact that religious beliefs are no bar to registration. This could well lead to most of the places
of worship to register their naivedyam or prasadam (sacred offering) as GI.

The fact that whether such registrations would be against the spirit of section 9 (d) of the GI Act
need to be debated in legal, academic, policy and civil society realms. Through the Order, IPAB
had left several options available for the opponents with regard to registration of the product: to
register the respondent and the intervener as joint proprietors; proprietor of Subhash Jewellers to

11
George, M. P. (2012). IPAB on Payyannur Ring Spicy IP, available at https://spicyip.com/2012/11/ipab-on-
payyannur-ring.html)
 14

be an authorized user or as a member of the association. The GI Registry was directed to hear all
concerned parties and take a decision. Subsequently, a fresh application was filed by M/s. Sree
Choovatta Vallapil Tharavad Dharmadaiva Paripalana Trust for registration of the ring. The
Consultative committee met the applicants and reached the conclusion that there are around four
groups in the artisanal cluster and approximately 12-15 artisans were involved in the making of
the ring and that they were unable to form a consortium or conglomerate due to individual,
family, local and business interests. In addition, the Trust was a private entity whose membership
were open only to family members (that too male) whereas the society mentioned in the
application was formed for the purpose of applying for GI wherein the majority of the member
were traders. In other words, the committee felt that the applicants did not satisfy the necessary
conditions to be a Registered Proprietor and nor were they ready to join hands to form an
association. In fact, they were opposed to grant of GI in favor of the other. Thus, until there was
possibility of forming an association which accommodates the interests of the artisans, the
committee felt that it was not possible to accept either of the applications.12 In other words,
while the GI for the product is recognized, the proprietorship is still unresolved.13

12
Order of the Registrar available at
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GlDOC/6/6%20-%20Gl%20-200rder%200f%2ORegistrar%20-%2022-04-2014.pdf
13
Soumya Vinayan, Geographical Indications in India: Issues and Challenges - An
Overview, 20 J. World Intell. Prop. 119 (2017).
 15

Chapter 4 | Conclusion
Even though GIs have been in vogue for several centuries with legislations dating back to as
early as 1883 at the international level, the GI Act in India is in a very nascent stage. This,
however, does not imply that the concept of GI is a new phenomenon in the realm of production
and trade in India. With a goldmine of GIs in agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, the
significance of GI in India is extremely high. Nonetheless, at present, the focus is on the
registration of GI products with or without potential. This is understood given the fact that the
Act is at a very initial stage and the levels of awareness among producers and traders are perhaps
low not only with regard to the processes for registration, but also its social and economic
benefits and significance.
 16

Chapter 5 | Bibliography
1. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection Act), 1999
2. Geographical Indications Journal available at http://ipindia.nic.in/girindia/
3. APEDA Rules 1986 S.O. 2835(E) (Amendments-4), New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and
Industry available at http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/corporate-info/APEDA
Rules/Rules_03122008.pdf
4. George, M. P. (2012). IPAB on Payyannur Ring Spicy IP, available at
https://spicyip.com/2012/11/ipab-on-payyannur-ring.html)
5. Soumya Vinayan, Geographical Indications in India: Issues and Challenges – An Overview,
20 J. World Intell. Prop. 119 (2017).
6. Reddy, P. (2012).APEDA discloses legal expenses on 'Basmati'-Rs. 7,62,00,000 and counting
[online]. Available at http://spicyip.com/2012/07/apeda-discloses-legal-expenses-on.html
7. Banerjee, M., & Naushad, S. (2010). Grant of geographical indication designation to Tirupati
Laddu: Commercialization of faith? NUJS Law Review, 3(1),