Geographical Indication and Authorized Users

-
Geographical Indications (GI) is the form of Intellectual Property (IP) which has been attracting attention of policy-makers, lawyers, economists as well as producers (particularly in agriculture sector) since the adoption of TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement. The major reason for this attention could be that GI is the only form of IP which is owned by whole producing community and not just an individual or an enterprise. 

GIs are basically distinguishing signs that are used to identify competing goods particularly in the international market wherein the extent of losses due to counterfeit goods is huge. 

The use of Geographical Origin brands comes up with its own set of challenges. Considering the collective nature of GIs, the producers must organize themselves, bring in collective actions pertaining to production standards, quality standards & control, product distribution and marketing as well.

This post particularly deals with question I have been asked regarding the registration of Authorized Users under The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 [GI Act].

Section 17(1) of the GI Act states:
"Any person claiming to be the producer of the goods in respect of which a geographical indication has been registered under Section 16 may apply in writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registering him as an authorized user of such geographical indication".

Now, question comes whether this provision Sec. 17(1) of GI Act is a mandate?

Going by the Interpretation of Statues, the word "May" can be treated as "Shall" which makes the above provision mandatory. However, even in the absence of such interpretation and any precedent, I think this provision should be considered or made mandatory.

Considering the collective nature of this community IP right, it is the ‘Authorized Users’ and not the ‘Registered Proprietor’ who have the exclusive right to the use of the GI in relation to the goods in respect of which the GI is registered, subject to any condition and limitation to which the registration is subject to.

To realize real benefits of authorized user registrations, unity is pertinent among the producers as well their leaders. Like ISO Certifications, GI Certificates shall have strict quality parameter compliance to be fulfilled. The procedure is still in naive stage and the quest for awareness is on. Let's hope we bring back the glorious days of agriculture through geographical indications!

Stay tuned..

~until next time~


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