Our readers may remember that Praveen Raj had filed a PIL in the SC on the same point a year ago and subsequently withdrew it since a similar PIL has been filed before the Madras High Court by another person. However as reported by us over here the Madras High Court had dismissed the petition on the ground that there already existed an alternate and efficacious remedy, in the form of the Registrar of GIs or the IPAB was available to the Petitioner. Praveen Raj then petitioned the IPAB to invoke its suo-moto powers to revoke the G.I. status granted to the Tirupati Laddu. The IPAB wrote back to him stating that they didn’t have such powers. We’ve blogged about it over here. So, after a year of petitions before all the wrong forums, we finally have a relatively well-drafted rectification petition before the appropriate forum.
The main grounds taken up Mr. Praveen Raj in his petitioner, accessible over here, are as follows:
Mr. Raj’s strategy to file this petition before the G.I. Registry is questionable since this is the same authority which granted the G.I. status in the first place. Bureaucrats rarely like to admit to their mistakes. It may have therefore been a better stategy to file it before the IPAB as it would probably been more objective than the Registry. Regardless of strategy, Mr. Raj’s petition is important because I think it is the first of its kind i.e. no such petitions have been filed before the Registry earlier. Given the deadly mix of religion and the law in this case I am sure it will be an interesting ride to judgment day. We’ll keep you posted on the latest.
Hindu Business Line today carries a very crisp news on this.
Registry moved for removal of GI tag for ‘Tirupati Laddu’
Vinson Kurian
Thiruvananthapuram, Oct 25
An application has been registered with the Geographical Indications (GI) Registry seeking removal of the entry pertaining to ‘Tirupati Laddu’ GI.
The ‘rectification application’ has been moved by Mr R.S. Praveen Raj, an IPR expert and a scientist, with the National Institute for Interdisciplinary Sciences and Technology (NIIST) here.
HIGH COURT ORDER
This follows a Madras High Court order directing a public interest writ petitioner to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) or the GI Registry for relief in the matter.
Mr Praveen Raj said he had earlier petitioned the IPAB seeking a ‘suo motu’ action in the matter. However, the IPAB had replied in the negative saying it lacked ‘suo motu’ powers.
He had also flagged concerns about applicability of public interest under Section 27 of Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, and Rule 65 of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002.
‘PERSON AGGRIEVED’
Absence of any response from IPAB in this regard was indicative of suggesting the petitioner to avail the advantage of ‘person aggrieved’ or ‘person interested’ to represent public interest, Mr Raj said.
The option to approach IPAB was being reserved for future, as its jurisdiction could be evoked, if required, in the form of appeal against the order of the Registrar.
I hope that the Controller General would take it as an opportunity to correct an obvious mistake made by the Registry. Mr. Kurian’s declared policy is transparency in Indian IP system.
Hi. A recent order in a patent matter, which may be of interest to you.
Source: Delhi High Court website
CS(OS) No. 1993/2010
Issue summons in the suit returnable for 01.11.2010 before the Learned Joint
Registrar.
IA No. 13017/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1993/2010
1. I have heard the learned senior counsel and perused the affidavit of Mr.
Rajeev Pancholy.
2. It has been stated in the affidavit that the defendant no. 1 against whom the
allegations of patent violation are made is in the process of selling its
impugned product to Reliance Communication, 13th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and Tata Teleservices, Jeevan Bharti Tower 1, 10th
Floor, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and thereby infringing the statutory
protection granted to the plaintiff company so far as its patent in the specific
type of antennae is concerned.
3. I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Kaul and gone through the
affidavit of Mr. Rajeev Pancholy as well as the photographs of the company
placed on record.
4. Prima facie I am satisfied that both Reliance Communication as well as Tata
Teleservices are necessary as well as proper parties as they are the
beneficiaries of the impugned patented Bi-sector array antennae which is
infringing the statutory protection granted to the patent of the plaintiff
company, and therefore, they are necessary as well as proper parties as without
them there cannot be complete adjudication of the matter. This is all the more
necessary keeping in view the fact that the defendant no. 1 is having address
only of China. Let the plaintiff file an amended memo of parties.
5. Notice be also issued to both the newly impleaded defendants, i.e. Reliance
Communication and Tata Teleservices along with the complete set of paper book
for appearance before the Learned Joint Registrar on the date fixed.
6. The notice must indicate that the defendants must file the reply to the
application within one week from the date of service.
7. In the meantime, the newly impleaded defendant nos. 2 and 3 are directed to
maintain the status quo with regard to the installation of the ?alleged Bi-
Sector array antennae? in so far as the same is purported to be supplied by the
defendant no. 1.
8. The provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied within three days.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER, 04, 2010
KP