Section 11(1) of Geographical Indication of Goods Act, 1999 says - Any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under law for the time being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication.

The proprietor of Tirupati laddu GI (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam - TTD) states in their GI application, which was published in the Geographical Indication Journal No 28 from page 38 to page 66, that TTD has the absolute monopoly over the production of 'Tirupathi Laddu'. While the laddus are made by workers of the temple (TTD employees) and hired labour, there is no mention of any other beneficiary in the application except TTD. Therefore the crux of the matter referenced above lies in the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 as to whether the GI applicant in the instant case represents the "interest of the producers".

The eligibility to apply for GI is being substantiated by TTD in the counter affidavit filed before Madras High Court in response to a writ petition challenging the validity of Tirupati laddu GI. The affidavit submits that TTD is a charitable and Hindu religious institution governed by the statutory rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. While there is no bar for TTD to move a GI application under Section 11, it can qualify for proprietorship only if it represents the interests of the "producers" from the Geographical Region. It is worth repeating here that GI legislation is meant for protecting the rights of a group of producers from a Geographical location, for whom the goods serve their livelihoods. 

The counter affidavit also makes an interesting statement that the GI protection obtained is community centric aimed at maintaining the tradition and quality associated with Tirupati Laddu and the betterment of the community involved in the manufacturing and selling of the Tirupati laddu. Can TTD establish the 'interest of producers' by this averment ? Does it mean that the definition of "producers" under section 11(1) includes employees/contract labourers of the organisation ?

This argument looks very trivial or rather funny.

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 - reports live mint. A consultative group, formed by the Controller General to assess the application, had recommended acceptance of the applications in respect of Reliance Jamnagar petrol, Reliance Jamnagar diesel, Reliance Jamnagar LPG and Reliance Jamnagar fuel after deleting Reliance from the GI name. The group also asked RIL to submit a no-objection certificate from the petroleum and natural gas ministry before considering the application in respect of Krishna-Godavari basin gas. 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.

Taking a serious note of the implications, the company withdrew its applications for four products, viz. Jamnagar Petrol, Jamnagar Fuel, Jamnagar LPG and Jamnagar Diesel. The registration for Krishna Godavari Gas was abandoned as the company did not show any interest in pursuing the case owing to the difficulty in obtaining a no-objection certificate from the petroleum and natural gas ministry. 

Live mint also quotes a GI specialist, Mr. Anoop Narayanan, partner at law firm Majmudar and Co. - "The fundamental question involved in this matter was whether the geographical indication applied for by RIL is qualified to be a GI at all. Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, an application can be filed only by an association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law representing the interests of the producers of the goods. Therefore, an individual company which does not represent the interest of the producers of the goods in the geographical locality (representing its own interest), cannot be an eligible applicant of a GI" 

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. Subjugating the laws of the land to monopoly practices is very dangerous. IPRs with reasonable restrictions 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
Scientist - IP Management & Technology Transfer
National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science & Technology (NIIST),
(Formerly RRL, Trivandrum), Industrial Estate P.O., Pappanamcode,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 019, Kerala, India

http://secularcitizen.blogspot.com/2009/12/r-s-praveen-raj.html