So The Issue of the King of Mangoes Is Back On The Table..!

-
ALPHONSO MANGO - AN IDENTITY CRISIS..?

The issue of Alphonso Mango and Geographical Indication has come back on the table for a hearing to decide upon the existing and non-existing dichotomy. 

Taking a queue from my earlier post, I stand by what I have said asserting the position of Ratnagiri Alphonso Mango, Devgad Alphonso Mango in the light of Geographical Indications.

I would like a quote a paragraph from a research article titled "An Environment Appraisal of Jaigad-The Proposed Site for the 1200MW Mega Thermal Power Plant” published by The Green Alternatives, Mumbai (2007), Dr. P.R. Arun, while discussing the unique agricultural biodiversity of Ratnagiri region said:

“The conservation value of this area is further enhanced because of the unique Ratnagiri Alphonso mangoes. Ratnagiri Alphonso variety of mangoes is produced only from this small region, and is a delicacy for mango lovers all over the world. It is time that the Government take the necessary steps to provide adequate protection to this heritage fruit, through facilitating Geographical Indication system registration for the orchards of this area.”

Above quoted paragraph very much summarizes what I want to say!

Now, important question that everyone seeks answers for is -  how do we really identify the real Alphonso from Ratnagiri or Devgad?

It has been popularly said that Mangoes take the color of the soil they are grown on and rightly so. Red, Iron rich alluvial soil in Ratnagiri district gives Ratnagiri Alphonso its characteristics color and flavour. High Silicon content in soil maintains the integrity of peel of Mango. While the Devgad Alphonso has a thin skin as compared. It has a narrow and slightly elongated bottom. This feature distinguishes it from other Alphonso Mangoes. Although visually similar to Ratnagiri and Devgad Alphonso Mangoes, other Alphonso varieties are grown on flat terrain and far away from sea shore and therefore differ characteristically (thick skin with less pulp) from the cultivars grown in Ratnagiri and Devgad on the red soil of the Konkan, surrounded by the salty sea breeze.

There are loads of reports describing how the consumer is being cheated when the Alphonso look alike from Gujarat and Karnataka are being sold in the name of Ratnagiri and Devgad Alphonso Mangoes. Though many farmers from these areas have taken firm steps to ensure direct to home delivery from the farms, there remains lot to be done. 

Granting GI status to Ratnagiri and Devgad Alphonso Mangoes will go long way in order to devise an effective strategy in order to prevent misuse of the brand name and prevent cheating of the consumer. I will update the status post hearing..

~ Stay Tuned ~

until next time..









Comments

  1. Du IP Café6 October 2018 at 11:45

    In the light of recent events, I am sure many interested people would find my blogposts in this regard informative and relevant..

    ReplyDelete

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