SpicyIP ran a guest post recently on a post-grant analysis of the Tirupati Laddu geographical indication (GI). The post itself received an overwhelming response from readers, most of whom were in agreement with the author’s views that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), being the sole producer and sole beneficiary of the sale of the product, could not qualify as a legitimate “association”, as required under the GI Act.“According to experts, the dual objectives of the registration and protection of G.Is. are to protect the community rights of stakeholders and to prevent the consumer from getting deceived or confused by fakes or substandard products. The TTD’s application satisfies the second objective but not the first. In the prescribed application, the TTD has mentioned only TTD against the column on the list of association of persons/producers/organisation/authority.
…It is tempting to term G.I. as the poor man’s I.P. (intellectual property) in India because most of the stakeholders of G.Is are farmers, artisans and craftsmen belonging to the lower economic strata and, ideally, the benefits of G.I. registrations must trickle down to them. If instead of the TTD a community of skilled cooks in and around Tirupati makes these laddus, and supplies them, after due quality checks, for distribution to pilgrims visiting Tirupati, then the registration as G.I. may be warranted.
Experts in I.P. are, therefore, worried that the granting of G.I. status to Tirupati laddus militates against the very spirit of G.I. protection, which is aimed at protecting, preserving and promoting collective community rights as opposed to private monopoly rights. They point out that permitting such registrations can lead to a situation where a community or private enterprise carrying on a monopolistic business can get a G.I. for its product if it can demonstrate that it is the only one manufacturing or producing the product and that this product has unique features…“
In defence of the Laddu
The same article, however, does contain a defence against these allegations:
“Subodh Kumar of the Andhra Pradesh Technology Development and Promotion Centre, who had a major role in drafting the TTD’s application and statement of case before the G.I. Registry, said that Section 2 (k) (iii) of the GIGA defines producer as any person who makes or manufactures the goods, and that under Section 2(n) of the GIGA, any organisation could be the proprietor of the G.I. In other words, according to him, the GIGA protects the G.I. of a single producer, such as the TTD, as well as a community of producers, if there is any.”
Meanwhile, TTD itself appears to have been mysteriously silent on this whole issue. I have to admit I am yet to come across a formal statement from the Devasthanam about its registration or a response to the clamour surrounding it. If any readers have a clue, do post a note in the comments section.
The Trendy Laddu?
On a related front, and as though the Frontline article had portended it, regular reader and commentator RS Praveen Raj points us to a news report in the Economic Times that the Pazhani (or Palani) Murugan temple in Tamil Nadu may be contemplating a GI application on similar lines, for its ‘Panchamritam’ prasadam made from local ingredients (Image from Wikipedia):
The Chairman of the Temple Trust, S Balasubramaniam, is reported to have told ET the following:
“[T]he trust will also consider applying to the Patent office for geographical indication (GI) for panchamirtham, since the final product is a generic one with a unique mixture of Viruppachchi plantains, kandasari sugar from Kangeyam area, dates, honey, sugar candy, cardamom and ghee in proper proportions.
The Viruppachchi plantains grown exclusively in the Palani Hills already has a GI status and Palani temple has a tie-up with the farmers for this important raw material. “The small-sized virupachchi plantain has very little water content and therefore it is highly suitable for preparation of panchamirtham,” said Mr Balasubramaniam.”
Ah, it’s that religion and IP affair again, you say: what a devil of a combination.
Congratulations to Spicy IP
Sumathi – thanks for highlighting this issue… As feared by many in the IP circles, the registration granted to the Laddu seems to have emboldened many to rush to Chennai with an application… Today it is a temple, tomorrow it will be mosques, churches and gurudwaras… I wonder where we are going to end up at this rate.
The GI registration is going to be challenged, by an individual from Kerala.
Refer the ToI, Hyd edition [09/Oct/2009].
Regards,
Freq. Anon
hey, an interesting bit to add to this–please see the link below-
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3283574
Hi all – thanks for your comments on this note.
#Latha – Exactly – identical issues were raised in the earlier post published on the blog.
#Rohit, Freq. Anon – thanks for bringing the story to our attention. In fact, this has already been posted on in an earlier comment by the petitioner himself, Mr Praveen Raj (who has commented here above as well). See here: http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2009/09/guest-post-tirupati-laddu-or-lord.html
We shall report on any further developments on this as and when we receive information.
@Freq. anon and @ Rohit. It is reported in THE HINDU also (on 09/10/09 in the Back page)
‘Geographical Indication’ tag for Tirupati laddu challenged in Supreme Court
J. Venkatesan
New Delhi: A scientist from Kerala has moved the Supreme Court challenging the grant of Indian patent for ‘Tirupati laddu’ (a temple offering) with the tag of ‘Geographical Indication’. R.S. Praveen Raj, working in the National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, sent a letter in this regard to Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan with a request that it might be treated as a writ petition.
He said the matter was about “the prejudice caused to Article 25 of the Constitution and the violation of Sections 9(d), 11 and 9(a) of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 in the action by the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Government of India, and the Registrar of Geographical Indications to register Tirupati Laddu as ‘goods’ under the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.” Mr. Raj said he was concerned at the potential devastation to the country “that is likely to happen if private appropriation of religious symbols is allowed.” The conferment of the GI tag on Tirupati laddu would ban others from making and marketing laddus under the same name. “The GI status gives the Tirumala laddus a built-in legal protection and makes any infringement of the rights an offence.”
According to him, the “GI Act is meant for the protection of ‘Goods’ only and the Act defines ‘Goods’ as any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry. Food stuff is also included in the definition under Section 2(1)(f) of the GI Act provided that such food stuff can be stocked, preserved and sold as goods.”
“Tirupati laddu cannot be classified as one among agricultural goods, natural goods or handicraft, leaving an option to schedule it under industrial goods. But it is quite hard for devotees to believe that temple offerings are equivalent to manufactured goods or commercially significant commodities.”
What is meant by ‘religious commodity’ ?
“Tirupati laddu is the first religious commodity anywhere in the world to get a GI tag, and also the GI-protected product with the smallest area of production—the premises of the temple itself” – The livemint news on October 16, 2009 titled “The heat in the religious sweet” quotes G. Muthukumaar, a GI specialist who worked extensively on the Tirupati laddu case at Anand and Anand before leaving recently to start his own firm.