Who Qualifies to be a Producer under Geographical Indications Act??

-
Article 22.1 of TRIPS Agreement refers to the term Geographical Indications as -

"...indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin."

On 15th September, 2015, the Geographical Indications Act, 1999 celebrated its 12th birthday since the day of enforcement, Unfortunately, it is still considered to be in its initial stages. In fact, when I tried to search whether the IPAB or Courts have interpreted the meaning of the term "Producer" defined in Section 2(1)(k) of the Geographical Indications Act, 1999, I could not find a single document throwing light on this issue. 

Section 2(1)(k) of GI Act, 1999 defines the term producer as

"Producer‟ in relation to goods, means any person who,

  1. if such goods are agricultural goods, produces the goods and includes the person who processes or packages such goods;
  2. if such goods are natural goods, exploits the goods;
  3. if such goods are handicraft or industrial goods, makes or manufactures the goods,
  4. and includes any person who trades or deals in such production, exploitation, making or manufacturing, as the case may be, of the goods.
The definition includes under its aegis the person who  packages such goods. The reason for inclusion of this category of persons is not clear. As far as the conceptual understanding of Geographical Indications goes, the person who packages such goods has got no role to play in shaping up the genuine characteristics of the product involved.

Furthermore, Section 11(1) of the GI Act, 1999 talks about who can be an applicant. It describes the Applicant as any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods which means that the Applicant has to be a legal entity and should be representing the interest of producers of the good applied for.

The question arises how a person who packages the good can represent the interest of producers? If we take a close look at Section 2(1)(k)(i) of GI Act, it uses the disjunctive word "or" between 'who produces' and  'who packages'. The interpretation of the connector here is required.

The rules is that "or" is normally disjunctive and "and" is normally conjunctive and a departure from the same shall not be available unless the very aim and objective of the Act requires so. If the Legislature wishes to use "and" in a particular statutory provision, then it has every right to do so and nothing prevents them for doing so. So, if the word "or" has been used instead of "and", it becomes obvious that the Legislature purposefully used the word "or". However, in the present situation, the literal interpretation doesn't seem to fit.

Here comes into the picture, the pragmatic approach of Purposive Construction which interprets law in the larger interest of society while deviating from literal rule. In my opinion, if we apply purposive construction and the word "or" is red as "and" then it makes a lot more sense as the person who processes and packages goods can be seen as the person representing interest of the producers of the goods applied for...

until next time.. in anticipation of change.......




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starbucks vs. SardarBuksh

-
Image
Branding your brand does not and must not mean that you copy somebody else's brand name and get a free ride upon their good will.  Trademark law is very clear in this aspect while keeping two most essential pre-requisites before registering a trademark as - 1. Trademark has to be distinctive; 2. Trademark must not be descriptive. Lot many brand owners make mistakes in understanding the concept of distinctiveness and start using brand names which are similar to the already existing trademarks which are famous. Making minor changes here and there either in spellings or color combinations or finding a rhyming words to the existing trademarks does not yield distinctiveness to your brand name. Some of the brand owners knowingly make use of such deceptively similar marks and then get sued.  In one of such interesting cases in Delhi High Court, the Court has ruled in favor of Starbucks who filed a case against a local coffee shop chain SardarBuksh for copying word mark a
Read more

Trade Marks and U(nu)sual Misunderstandings

-
Trade Marks registration process in India has seen enormous changes in past 2-3 years. The number of Forms have been reduced from 64 to 8. The examination time has reduced from 2 years to 5 working days - believe it or not but its true and one of the fastest all over the world!   However, the change in law or rules has not impacted some common misconceptions that are prevalent among business owners about the Trade Marks. Thought it would be good to address them here: 1. I don't need to perform search..My Trade Mark is Original in toto Applicants commonly believe that the trade name they thought is distinctive enough and don't see any need to get a search done or to get an opinion from a practitioner. Let me say something unpleasant that the name you want to trademark probably isn’t as original as you think it is, at least not in the eyes of the Trade Marks Registry. Every year, thousands of trademark applications are rejected without refunds because they too closely resembl
Read more

The Jurisdiction Saga on the interplay of the Design Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

-
In a very lucid judgment in the case of S.D. Containers vs. Mold-tek Packaging Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2020), the Supreme Court of India decided the matter clearing the air of doubt on the interplay of the Design Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Relevant facts on background of the case -  Mold-tek Packaging Limited (hereinafter Plaintiff/Respondent), a manufacturer and seller of plastic packaging material who obtained design registration for its container's lids, jars etc. in 2015 and 2017. In late 2019, the Plaintiff/Respondent came to know about S.D. Containers (hereinafter Defendant/Appellant) who allegedly infringed design of the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a civil suit before the Commercial Court at Indore seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant/Appellant from copying and using the design of the Plaintiff/Respondent as described in Design Application No. 299039 and 299041 for the containers and lids, respectively. The
Read more