Review: ‘Geographical Indications: Ambiguity In Legal Provisions In India’ by Chakrabarti, G.

Author: Intern - Aakaanksha Akella

Citation: Chakrabarti, Gargi, “Geographical Indications: Ambiguity in Legal Provisions in India”, Delhi Journal of Contemporary Law, e-ISSN 2582-4570, Volume II (2020), Available at < http://lc2.du.ac.in/DJCL2/Delhi%20Journal%20of%20Contemporary%20Law%20Volume%202.pdf>

Introduction

The subject paper is an attempt to analyse the provisions of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “GI Act”) in order to identify the source of ambiguities and confusion stemming from the Act with regards to its application, since Geographical Indications are a slightly different intellectual property in comparison to copyrights or trademarks, and recommend suggestions to rectify these ambiguities. The paper utilises actual examples and case-studies to identify the ambiguities in the application of the GI Act for protection of Geographical Indications in India, and subsequently proposes suggestions by substantiating them with the reasoning behind why they might work better.

Unique Nature of GI

The paper establishes a base for the flow of the issue by identifying the uniqueness of Geographical Indications as a community right as opposed to a private right like in case of other intellectual property rights, and the fundamentals of unique and non-replicable product quality behind a Geographical Indication to a product. The initial section of the paper also delves into, albeit briefly, the historical international agreements protecting Geographical Indications including the Paris Convention, 1883 that used the term ‘appellations of origin’, the Madrid Agreement and finally the TRIPS Agreement which set out the minimum standard of protection for Geographical Indications. The charting out of these international agreements in the paper helps to provide a perspective of the evolution of international jurisprudence on protection of Geographical Indications.

Ambiguities in the Statute

The paper dissects the potential areas of confusion with respect to the GI Act, by analysing what is termed as “success stories” of geographical indications. The observation made is that the inclusion of different categories of goods which also incorporate traditional cultural goods and handicrafts, is what makes the Indian legal regime unique. The paper includes a comparison of the success of Darjeeling tea, Kesar mango, etc. to the failure of textile products such as Bagru print, Sanganeri print or Kota Doria – in terms of increment in export, profit and establishment of brand value. Section 11 of the GI Act is the relevant provision when it comes to the eligible applicants for a GI tag.  It is then pointed out that for products like Darjeeling tea, Kesar mango, Nasik grapes, the applicants were the group of local producers themselves, as opposed to government departments in other cases. The paper connects the observation regarding the applicants to the success of the products by reasoning that when entities connected to the production are involved in the application process, such as actual producers or association of producers of the said good, they help create and maintain better value chain in the post-registration phase as well.

The paper also makes an interesting point regarding the terminologies used in the statute being a possible source of confusion for the common man. The usage of the term ‘producer of goods’ for instance, is easier to comprehend as compared to the interchangeable terms such as ‘registered proprietor’, ‘authorised user’ used in the GI Act and its affiliate rules and manuals, which leads to lack of uniformity and also makes it difficult for a common man to comprehend the provisions, thereby resulting in confusion. The paper also argues for inclusion of retailers of packaged goods including end users in ‘registered proprietors’ and thereby be incorporated in Part B of the register.

The Way Forward

The paper recommends suggestions to erase the ambiguities and points of confusion identified, as summarised in the previous section of this review. In light of the observations made in the previous section, it is suggested that government departments should focus on capacity building rather than becoming an applicant themselves, which will allow producers and associations to be a part of the process and maximise economic benefits. It is recommended that Part A of the register should include registered proprietors or producers, and Part B should include the authorised users. The effect of this will be such that both sets of parties will have equal rights for obtaining relief in infringement cases, and thereby also maximise commercial benefit. The paper takes a leaf out of the European Union’s book to suggest strict supervision, mandatory logos and quality management for packaging of goods under registered geographical indications. Lastly, the paper suggests the addition of a specific legal provision for benefit sharing.

Conclusion

The research paper is able to make a strong case for the proposed suggestions by showing the practical repercussions of the provisions being debated upon. However, the most valuable suggestion to be taken from the said research is increased participation of the producers and their associations, directly leading to maximization of economic benefits. Greater promotion and awareness will play an essential role in encouraging their participation, which the paper also addresses briefly.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP