“After five years of the enactment of the Geographic Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act that came into effect from September 2003, only nine products have been accorded the Geographical Indicator (GI) status while another two are due to get the status from the Registrar of GIs in India.”
Since the numbers seemed horrendously low and contradicted innumerable earlier reports on this theme, including a government press release here, SpicyIP immediately queried the Dept of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) at the Ministry of Commerce, the nodal agency in charge of intellectual property in India. It turns out that the number of GI’s registered till date in India stands at a whooping 81–a figure that is over 9 times of what was stated in the above report. We’ve attached the complete list here for the convenience of our readers. We are very grateful to Mr TC James for providing us with this information.
82 GI’s in a span of 5 years (the GI registry began working around 2003) sure does look impressive! Particularly, when one considers the fact that the office is effectively staffed by just one Controller (Mr V. Natarajan) and an examiner, Prashant Bhairappanavar. With so many applications pouring in, it is clear that they are working around the clock!
Interestingly, all the registrations so far are from India. Contrast this with the patent regime, where most registrations in India are still by foreigners. Testimony to the fact that GI’s are of significant national interest to India, which continues to fight an international battle in Geneva advocating that the special protection for wines and spirits under TRIPS be extended to other forms of GI as well. For the latest on this controversy which has pitted a number of developing countries against the developed bloc, read this report at Intellectual Property Watch (IPW), the leading authority for international IP news.
So what keeps foreigners from registering their GI’s in India? Lack of business potential/sales within India? Surely, that can’t be the case. Innumerable trademark litigations by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) in India will testify to the immense business potential in India. Readers may recollect our earlier post, where we expressed surprise at the fact that the SWA has yet to register its GI in India.
Anyway, for those interested in a critical analysis of the massive GI registration numbers in India, see Latha Jishnu’s incisive piece here (since the original piece at Business Standard is currently inaccessible, I have linked up to “Original Fake“, an insightful and refreshingly different commentary on Indian IP and tech law issues by Prashant Iyengar). While mulling on the large GI numbers, Latha pointedly notes:
“In recent months there has been practically a stampede for GI registration in India. Unlike the developed countries which use it primarily for food products (Champagne, of course, and things like Parma Ham), India has extended GI protection to products across the spectrum, from handicrafts to flowers and spices. Thus the Aranmula mirror, along with assorted silks, saris, textiles and embroidery styles, joins soaps, incense, different varieties of jasmines, several strains of rice, tea, betel leaf, pepper and chillies to get the GI tag.
……And perhaps, the GI Registry in Chennai needs to apply more stringent yardsticks. As states get more competitive to include as many of their products in the registry, it appears have become a free-for-all. Does a Coimbatore wet grinder, the ubiquitous stone contraption used in south India to grind grains, qualify for GI?”
Well, it turns out that the “Coimbatore wet grinder” had already been registered as far back as 2006! But Latha’s question is an interesting one that merits some investigation. I am given to understand (subject to correction) that apart from this preliminary rejection of the Basmati application, the GI registry has not rejected a single application till date.
However, the Mint recently reported that an application for the mother of all GI’s “Basmati” is close to being rejected by the GI Registry in Chennai:
“A seven-member consultative group headed by V. Ravi, the controller general of patents, design and trade marks, recently rejected an application for GI status for the rice variety filed by Karnal, Haryana-based Heritage Foundation in August 2004, citing flaws and lack of relevant data, said an official at the Union ministry of commerce and industry.
Following the consultative group’s decision, the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai has issued a notice to the Heritage Foundation asking it to show cause why its application should not be rejected. The hearing on the notice will be held before Ravi, who is also the registrar of the Geographical Indications Registry. “There were discrepancies in the application filed by Heritage Foundation,” said the commerce ministry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak with the media.”
I am still unclear on whether or not this rejection was substantive or stemmed from procedural and other formal irregularities. As one can appreciate, it might be relatively easy to beef up the application and cure procedural infirmities. However, if this were a substantive rejection, then India is basically signaling to the world that Basmati is not worthy of GI protection!
From the report, it appears that the applicant hadn’t worked hard enough in preparing a fool proof application and that the locus to file the GI application in question might have been an issue. The Mint report states:
“The Heritage Foundation could not provide technical details and scientific data relating to specification of the product, identity and the geographical area where it is grown, the official added. The application was also flawed in terms of representation of basmati growers and farmers on the foundation, as it was represented mostly by mill owners and exporters, the official said.”
Perhaps if APEDA had filed it, it might have been more succesful? The Mint report concludes by noting:
“Ahead of a formal announcement rejecting Heritage Foundation’s application, the government has decided to empower the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) to protect farm and horticultural products such as basmati from attempts by other countries or producers to patent them.
The Union government has decided to amend the APEDA Act to enable the agency to register these products for protection using GIs. The amendment has been cleared by the Union cabinet and will be introduced in Parliament soon, the official said.”
Notwithstanding our lack of clear answers underlying the negative report by the 7 member committee, this incident suggests that there might be some level of scrutiny being exercised by the registry. But one has to wait and watch and get more figures for a more thorough assessment in this regard.
In this context, I wonder what fate will befall the infamous “Jamnagar” application filed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) which is currently under opposition at the GI registry. See this scathing report here in 2006 which notes that this application by Reliance to cover petroleum products is highly tenuous, as the products in question (petroleum) were not characteristically attributable to geography. It notes in particular that “Petroleum products originating from Jamnagar are not inherently superior or unique to those originating in other parts of India or the world, merely because they are from Jamnagar”. To back up its claims, it carried a detailed account of an opposition filed by an individual GI consultant, Vinay Jain, against this application noting that:
“…. the application does not mention one of the essential ingredients of the GI, i.e., the “Characteristics” of the petroleum products attributable to the given geographical area. The characteristics given by RIL are as per ISO specifications which have no association with geography. Quite significantly, the process of production is not unique to the given geographical area and there is no contribution of the geographical location or any of its constituents and ingredients.
….the name Jamnagar is generic in all respects. Everyone in the region has the right to use the name…. Giving GI status for these products to one applicant alone amounts to giving that applicant exclusive marketing rights for the Jamnagar name, which is not the objective of the law.”
SpicyIP will continue to track this contentious application and bring you updates in future.
Apart from assessing the level of scrutiny by the GI office, we need to step back and ask the more important question: what do these numbers really mean? Will communities that own these GI’s become wealthy business magnates overnight? Is it enough to just keep drumming up these impressive numbers?
Readers may be aware of CSIR’s lofty patent numbers, which never really translated to any significant licensing figures. A Mint Report by Jacob Koshy notes:
“Though a prolific patentee, CSIR doesn’t generate much revenue from its patents. In 2004-05, the latest period for which data is available, CSIR filed 50 patents and generated Rs4 crore in royalties and licensing. However, it also spent Rs 10 crore in filing for the new patents and in maintaining existing ones.
“CSIR had got into a patenting rut. Policymakers believed that a critical mass of small patents would automatically translate into blockbuster patents that would bring in the revenues. That never really happened,” said a CSIR scientist, requesting anonymity.”
Which raises an important question in the context of the proposed Bayh Dole bill (a copy of which we recently carried): Given the costs of patenting and maintaining TTO’s (tech transfer offices), does the assumption that universities and research institutions would begin raking in the moolah once we incentivise them to file more patents hold good?
Back to our GI topic, the CSIR example demonstrates that the real challenge is to convert impressive GI registration numbers to bigger markets and more money for these communities. Particularly when the international markets for GI products are growing rapidly. I spoke with the owner of Nathmulls, a very reputed tea chain in Darjeeling who claims that the international market for Darjeeling tea is over 5 times of what is currently exported! The various GI communities along with the government has to come together and brainstorm to figure out ways of leveraging their GI’s to capture more markets.
At the cost of repetition, it bears noting that the GI “registrations”, though impressive, are just a means to an end and not an end in itself. And that we ought to be wary of gloating over increased numbers and cocooning ourselves into believing that this automatically converts to more prosperity for our poor artisans and farmers!
a GI cannot be licensed, assigned etc. So i suppose the option for foreign applicants become very restricted. Why do you think foreigners would want to apply for a GI.
in fact.. it is a little difficult for me to understand what benefit they would have even if they tried. We are still learning to protect patents..a GI..which has special origin from a geographic region..might be difficult to monitor.
I think a GI is more like a “benefit sharing” concept which needs to be combined with a certification mark sort of thing to be able to make it marketable in its true form.
Dear Anon:
Thanks for your thought provoking comment. you state:
“a GI cannot be licensed, assigned etc. So i suppose the option for foreign applicants become very restricted. Why do you think foreigners would want to apply for a GI. “
Don’t you think that the primary purpose of registrations of almost all forms of IP (including GI’s) are to prevent others from using the same. And that the sole purpose is not so much to assign, license etc as you mistakenly assume?
Why do you think India and other developing countries are fighting for an internationalisation of the obligation to implement GI regimes? These foreign GI’s will go a long way towards securing their export markets from registration/adoption of marks by native entities that are similar to the GI in question.
registration and adoption of marks by native entities and securing export market would be a benefit-that is true.
But that stage is far from now. popularity of GI is low coz it is seen as a mercy call from the developing countries. to have a product that is sold and accepted by the international market its crucial to make it available and popular and special! More often than not a GI would be owned and developed by a community or may be a farmer etc. who is unlikely to be able to have the product gobally available on his limited resources. even the market prices of such products would be high, cost of production is usually high and demand is limied..that would make them unprofitable. foreign applicants are usually big companies, mnc’s etc. How do you get them interested? a champgne or scotch whisky is different (in fact i would be curious to know if champgne or any other GI has been registered as a GI in any country other than the country of origin)..besides the only GI-like product the americans like is well secured by various international treaties.
My intention was to suggest a cetification mark sort of model in addition to a GI. a CM might make it easier to market and monitor the product, the later being very imp as the purpose of GI is to ensure a certain quality of the goods.
As to why CSIR does not make any significant licensing revenues, you only need to meet Dr R K Gupta..
It is an eye opener 😉
Albeit, he blames it on excessive greed/ very difficult question of exclusive licensing demanded by potential licensees.
This is to reaffirm the fact that the GI application filed by the “The Heritage”, Haryana based NGO has not been decided till yet and is pending. At no pint of time the same was rejected.
Another factual error creping therein that the said NGO is not at all dominated by Exporters. Rather all th Basmati growing farmers are its member.