 |
| Image from here. |
Although we are yet to see a copy of the final order, we have been informed that the Geographical Indications Registry dismissed, on July 30th 2012, the rectification petition filed by Praveen Raj against the registration of ‘Tirupati Laddu’ as a geographical indication. Some of the newspapers have carried reported the same over here and here.
Honestly, I’m not surprised that the G.I. Registry has dismissed the petition and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on Praveen Raj. After dragging its feet on the Praveen’s petition for almost 2 years, the G.I. Registry had finally informed both parties, on 19th June, 2012 that it would hear oral arguments in this case on the 16th of July, 2012. Thus Praveen Raj had almost one month to prepare for the case. Given that he has been pursuing the case for quite some time, almost 3 years, we were expecting Praveen Raj to jump at this opportunity to appear before the G.I. Registry. Instead, he informed the G.I. Registry on the 21st of June, 2012 that he was unable to appear before the G.I. Registry and asked the Registrar to proceed with the case ex-parte. To the best of my knowledge, he did not ask for an adjournment or a postponement of the date of hearing. Normally, if a particular hearing date is inconvenient, any of the two parties can ask for an adjournment. In India such adjournments are granted routinely.
Earlier in 2009, a PIL was filed before the Madras High Court against the G.I. tag for the ‘Tirupati Laddu’. That petition was dismissed on the grounds that an alternative and efficacious forum was available for adjudication of such a dispute and hence the PIL was dismissed with directions to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Under the G.I. Act, such a petition could have been filed either before the G.I. Registry or the IPAB. The most logical forum would have been the IPAB since the G.I. Registry granted the G.I. tag in the first place and then defended it before the Madras High Court. In such a case it was highly unlikely that the G.I. Registry would have ever overturned its earlier decision. Instead of filing a rectification petition before the IPAB, Praveen Raj wrote to the IPAB asking it to invoke its ‘suo-moto’ powers. The IPAB replied to him informing him that they would not invoke their ‘suo moto’ powers in which case Praveen Raj still had the option to file a rectification petition before the IPAB. Praveen Raj however filed the petition with the G.I. Registry.
Personally, I’m very disappointed with the cavalier manner in which Praveen Raj has approached this matter, especially his decision not to appear before the G.I. Registry. Given the circumstances, I cannot fault the G.I. Registrar for dismissing the petition and imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 on Praveen Raj.
Being an employee of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) under Govt. of India, I had to take permission from my Office to attend the hearing. I never had the support of my superiors in fighting this GI case. Though I managed to file the rectification petition, it was not possible to get the permission to attend the hearing. Therefore I wrote a letter to GI Registrar with the following contents
“I’m in receipt of your notice referenced above, intimating the date of hearing. However I submit that I have some practical difficulties in attending the hearing scheduled on 16th July 2012 at 11.30 am. Therefore, I maintain that the matter be heard ex-parte as informed vide my letter dated 04.11.2010 (Copy attached). Let me also enclose herewith a copy of my covering letter in respect of the application for removal of the GI, to substantiate the public interest that testifies ‘locus standi’ of the petitioner under Section 27.
It may kindly be noted that in the case Tirupati laddu GI, ‘Part B’ of the GI register does not contain any other user of GI (producers) other than TTD. It is expected that the decision of tribunal would clarify, in the light of the pertinent case, the necessity of Part B of the register with reference to the legislative intent of the GI Act.”
According to Rule 91 of GI Rules and FIFTH SCHEDULE, the maximum limit for award of cost by GI Registrar for one day’s hearing is Rs. 1000 only.
The basic question is whether places of worship can resort to trademark and other IP protection activities, as is done by run of the mill commercial organisations?
Praveen Raj felt strongly against it and went ahead by contesting Tirupati Laddu’s claim for IP protection, on his own, single handedly. Sadly, he was let down by GI Registrar.
Temples and other places of worship should uphold their dignity and should not stoop down to such low levels, with an eye on money making.
Law enforcing agencies should also have gone above commercial considerations and appreciated Praveen Raj’s clean motives.
What we are going to see is a spate of other places of worship going in Titupati Laddu way, with whatever they claim as unique, in the name of God.
What a pity!
N T Nair
In that case Praveen – CSIR should initiate disciplinary action against you for even daring to file the petition in the first.
It surely cannot be your position that the service rules allowed you to file the petition but not contest it at the stage of arguments. That does not make any sense to me.
You didn’t even try to ask for an adjournment, not even once, nor did you send a lawyer on your behalf.
Prashant
The question that arises can a Government Employee file such kind of cancellation petition? Is there any bar. Is he not a citizen of India? Does he necessarily require the permission of his office to file a cancellation petition if he feels affected even sentimentally about the continuation of the mark on the GI register? He can be an aggrieved person. Please upload the order as soon as you get it. Let public know what are the grounds on which the petition has been dismissed.
If he can file then he could have even engaged a lawyer for arguing on the day fixed. Mr. Praveen Raj has correctly mentioned that the cost is illegal. As according to the Rules, the GI Registry cannot impose the cost more than Rs1000/-. This shows the vindictiveness on the part of GI Regisry. With this I also conclude that Mr. Praveen Raj has committed mistake in not approaching the IPAB in rather approaching the GI Registry who granted the GI status at the first place and then defended before Madras High Court. It had to be rejected by the GI Registry. Nevertheless, he can still file appeal before IPAB.
I am aware of an AR in Delhi registry (Ms. Prem Lata) filing some petitions in Delhi High Court. She was scolded by CG for filing without seeking permission from the office. She has been keeping on filing the petitions. She has now filed an LPA making as many as 9 parties including the officials of the office (Asst. CPIO and FAA for RTI case in which she was imposed fine of the maximum permissible limit under the Act of Rs25000/- and taking of disciplinary action).
This is interesting. I feel sympathetic to the government employees who are being targeted here by their officials. The British era sarkari thing is still around I guess.
Well all hope is not lost. New people enter the field and am sure this is not the end of this issue.
In the Intellectual Property Office, India, it is dangerous to speak out the truth. Its safer to be silent and act as if nothing wrong is going on around us.
Very sad! This verdict means that numerous sweet shops can not sell similar tasting laddus in the name of “Tirupati” laddu.
Taking into consideration the ground on which the rectification petition filed by Mr.Praveen Raj was dismissed, it is quite apparent that GI Registry was looking for a technical reason to dismiss the petition (that he has no association with the makers/people involved in the making of the laddu) rather than considering the merits of arguments put up by the petitioner. And even if Mr.Praveen Raj had attended the said hearing, which he missed owing to the reasons cited above, it would have been highly unlikely that his presence would have played any role whatsoever in bringing out a different outcome in the case.
As a common man viewing the developments from outside, I doubt if the authorities were hand in glove with the TTD while hearing the case. It belies logic that the registry refused to view the larger picture, and instead looked for mere technicality to dismiss the same.
Above all, this incident proves again that Tirupati Temple is very much commercial at its heart, and spirituality and faith are used by TTD merely as an engine that drives its commercial interests.And it is us, the people, who should be blamed for erosion of values of this kind.
http://www.mathrubhumi.com/story.php?id=290751
Taking into consideration the ground on which the rectification petition filed by Mr.Praveen Raj was dismissed, it is quite apparent that GI Registry was looking for a technical reason to dismiss the petition (that he has no association with the makers/people involved in the making of the laddu) rather than considering the merits of arguments put up by the petitioner. And even if Mr.Praveen Raj had attended the said hearing, which he missed owing to the reasons cited above, it would have been highly unlikely that his presence would have played any role whatsoever in bringing out a different outcome in the case.
As a common man viewing the developments from outside, I doubt if the authorities were hand in glove with the TTD while hearing the case. It belies logic that the registry refused to view the larger picture, and instead looked for mere technicality to dismiss the same.
Above all, this incident proves again that Tirupati Temple is very much commercial at its heart, and spirituality and faith are used by TTD merely as an engine that drives its commercial interests.And it is us, the people, who should be blamed for erosion of values of this kind.
http://www.mathrubhumi.com/story.php?id=290751
It’s quite sad that Praveen Raj’s petition was dismissed by GI registry. World over, temples, churches, mosques, Gurudwara’s etc. are cheating the innocence of the people by doing “BELIEF-BUSINESS” and now, they, one by one, are establishing big business by taking GI mark, patent etc. in the name of gods and the articles related to these entities. This is to be strongly objected-Dr. Raghavan, TVM