SpicyIP has breaking news that the Madras High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the registration of Tirupati Laddu as a geographical indication. The Court dismissed the petition observing that alternate remedy of rectification had not been exhausted, that being the most appropriate route in this case.The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), represented by Anand and Anand, and the GI Registry had argued that the petition could not be maintained since the alternate efficacious remedy available under the Statute had not been exhausted. The Geographical Indications Act provides for rectification of a registered GI by way of a petition to be preferred before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board or the Registrar of Geographical Indications.
Readers will recall our extensive coverage of the issue, including most notably here and here, where news of the PIL was highlighted in the comments section.
In October 2009, Mr. J. Mohanraj, General Secretary of Jebamani Janata Party, had filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Madras High Court challenging two registrations which had been granted to the respective temple trusts:
1. the trademark registration granted by the Trademark Office to the image of Kannagi Amman deity of Attukkal, to the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust.
2. the registration granted for “Tirupati Laddu” as a Geographical Indication (GI) in favour of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam.
During the course of the matter, the Madras HC limited itself to hearing the matter on the Tirupati Laddu GI, since it came to light that there was an identical PIL filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the Attukal trademark registration (we have written about some of the concerns about the Attukal TM here).
The main grounds of challenge in the petition were that religious symbols could not be monopolized by private entities, and that religious offerings could not be commercial goods. The petitioner also argued that such grants violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
I haven’t seen a copy of the order, but I was part of a brief email discussion earlier today on how, if at all, the order attempted to discuss the issue of the locus standi of the person entitled to file a rectification for a GI registration. I understand that the order does not discuss this matter, but there is room for comment on this. (a similar discussion has recently ensued in a post by Sai re Indian patent provisions).
The question here, however, is that the court appears to recognise that an alternate remedy lies in the form of a rectification. The GI Act, in section 27, entertains an application for rectification made only by a “person aggrieved”. The court order appears to ratify the possibility of filing a rectification by a member of the public. Is this order, then, an invitation to include a larger body of persons in the definition of “person aggrieved”?
Readers familiar with trademark practice in India will know that there has been similar contention over who “person aggrieved” includes in rectification matters, and in some cases, the courts have interpreted the term fairly widely, introducing the issue of “public interest” (that familiar phrase again!) where need be.
It would be great to hear your opinions on this. We shall keep track and see if we can obtain a copy of the order for your benefit. We would also like to thank a southern friend of the blog who wishes to remain anonymous, for drawing our attention to this news.
deliberation on the larger constitutional issue was expected in the PIL.
Case before IPAB will have a narrow scope
TTD and the GIR had set up defences on merits apart from raising the alternate remedy as a preliminary objection. The Court chose to dismiss the petition on the preliminary objection only.
The MHC had earlier dismissed another writ challenging the GI for the kerala ring on the same lines.
Southern Friend.
Sumathi – Any idea if the argument of ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 27 of the GI Act was raised by the petitioner(for the court to discuss it in its order)? Specifically, whether it was argued that in view of Section 27, there is no alternate efficacious remedy? Drawing parallels from Justice Muralidhar’s order in the recent patent case of UCB Farchim v. Cipla Limited,and the language of Sections 27 (referring to “aggrieved person” and dealing with rectification) and 14(referring to “any person” and dealing with opposition) of the GI Act, I feel that section 27 is limited to aggrieved persons only. Which are the trademark cases you are referring that have interpreted ‘aggrieved person’ widely to introduce public interest? It would be great to see some discussions on this page on this… Personally, I am disappointed to read about the verdict.
Hi all – Thanks for your comments.
# Praveen Raj – I think #Southern Friend answers your question on the absence of discussion on constitutional issues in the order, though it would be interesting to see what the order says.
#Southern Friend – Thanks for the clarification. It would be fantastic to read the Payyannur GI MHC order as well, to see how the court has dealt with the cases.
#Latha – Again, I think #Southern Friend has answered what the gist of the order appears to be. I have not had a chance to see it as yet. But it seems clear that the issue of “aggrieved person” hasn’t been discussed.
My connection between “public interest” and “aggrieved person” was perhaps circuitously made — I was relying on an argument/principle I have encountered that suggests that the object of a TM rectification is the purity of the Register; and that the purity of the Register is a matter of public interest; which by extension, may be used to define “person aggrieved”
I will need to buffer this principle with case law, but it would be great to know your thoughts, and that of other folks who are familiar with TM practice, on this.
Thanks and cheers
My concern is about the implications of allowing the strutting of IPR in to the domain of Religion.
If any infringement of IPR obtained by temple authorities (Attukal or Tirupati) is caused by an action by a Non-Hindu, it is more likely that the battle for remedying it would be fought on the street. (and not in the court).
In our constitutional Scheme…, monopoly is not encouraged.However, exclusive rights for ‘products of creative mind’ are being allowed as IPR with reasonable restrictions, only because it is essential for industrial growth. No industrial purpose is served by the grant of ‘goods’ status to a temple
offering. Therefore, no private appropriation of religious symbol shall be allowed.
Nullifying the ‘proprietary rights’ owned by religious establishments is a difficult task.
Government authorities would have lot of difficulties to revoke an IPR granted to religious institutions, as they are also reckoned as property under Article 300A (Vide decision of Supreme court in Civil Appeal NO. 5114
of 2005, May 16, 2008, M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd)
Mixing religion with IPR will have serious consequences.
I have sent a petition (dated July 2, 2010) to Chairman, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) seeking ‘suo motu’ action for the cancellation of GI granted to ‘Tirupati laddu’. Section 27(4) of GI Act has the provision for ‘suo motu’ action by the board/tribunal.
The petition is posted in my blog http://secularcitizen.blogspot.com/
Now, the wisdom of IPAB will decide the future of Tirupati laddu GI.
Any update on what did IPAB do to the petition for suo moto action? I tried to read the petition dated July,2, 2010 at the blog http://secularcitizen.blogspot.com/ but the message reads that the blog has bene removed.
Please visit http://praveenrajrs.blogspot.com/