III

Table of Contents

DECLARATION ...............................................................................................................................
I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................
II

Chapter 1 | Introduction and Research Methodology ......................................................................1

1.1. | Introduction .........................................................................................................................1

1.2. | Research Objective ..............................................................................................................2

1.3. | Research Questions .............................................................................................................2

1.4. | Methodology .......................................................................................................................2

1.5. | Limitation ............................................................................................................................2

Chapter 2 | Geographical Indication Act of India: An Overview ....................................................3

Chapter 3 | Issue and Challenges Related to Geographical Indication in India ...............................5

3.1 | Status of registration ............................................................................................................5

3.2 | Role of the State ...................................................................................................................6

3.3 |Definitional ambiguities-geographical area and representing the interests of the producers9
.....................................................................................................................................................9

3.4 | Appropriation of rights in the name of Divine affairs: the case of Payyannur Pavithra Ring
...................................................................................................................................................10

Chapter 4 | Conclusion...................................................................................................................15

Chapter 5 | Bibliography ................................................................................................................16

 1

Chapter 1 | Introduction and Research Methodology

1.1. | Introduction
Geographical Indications (GI) are a crucial form of intellectual property used in the world of
commerce to emphasise a product's unique connection to the country, region, or locale where it
was made. The use of origin as a quality indicator serves to safeguard the interests of both
producers and consumers. This study tries to investigate the issues and difficulties surrounding the
use of geographical indications (GIs) within the Indian legal system, particularly in light of the
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999. Following the
section(s) that emphasise the key elements of Indian law and the state of registration, the current
section sheds light on the economic justification for GI. The primary problems and difficulties with
the use and registration of GIs in India are then covered in detail in the sections that follow, along
with the necessary examples.

It has long been popular to use GI as a land-based indicator. Differentiating products based on their
geographic origin is the main goal of the usage of GI. As a result, consumers can receive
information about the product's quality that can be attributed to local, natural, or human variables
through the use of geographic information systems (GIs). GI stands apart from other types of
intellectual property rights as a collective right.

It is observes that there are several studies which suggest that GIs are a collective good or a club
good. The main characteristics of a club good are:

(i)Only those producers who adhere to the specifications of the GI product are allowed to use the
indication and (ii) the use of GI by one does not diminish the same for another. This underscores
the problems of collective action.

It requires that all producers along the supply chain adhere to the quality standard which signifies
the reputation. So any "opportunistic behavior on the part of any producer can jeopardize the
reputation of the indication" (Prisoner's dilemma).' Thus, there are problems of "free riding"
wherein producers do not conform to the quality standards of the products but manage to "free
ride" on the reputation of the goods. Trademarks, on the other hand, identify a particular group of
 2

traders from others, but GIs is a "general descriptor of all producers/traders within a designated
geographical area for a particular good with certain qualities". Thus, all producers/traders from
within a defined geographical area can enjoy the use of the GI if they qualify. Thus, GIs are
certainly a collective monopoly right. It excludes members from either within or outside a
geographical area.

1.2. | Research Objective

The project has following Objectives:

1. To understand the concept of Geographical Indication.

2. To understand the issues and challenges with geographical indication in India.

1.3. | Research Questions

1. What did we understand by term Geographical Indication?

2. What are issues and challenges pertaining with geographical indication in India?

1.4. | Methodology
The Nature of study is descriptive in nature. The study is done with the help of secondary data.
The secondary information has been obtained from published sources such as books, journals,
websites, research works etc.

1.5. | Limitation
The project is limited to the general study of issues and challenges related geographical indication
in India and the project only deals with this topic through examples of various cases related to the
subject.
 3

Chapter 2 | Geographical Indication Act of India: An Overview

There has been no separate legislation in India until the Geographical Indications of Goods
(Registration and Protection Act), 1999 which governed the use of GIs. Prior to this, GIs were
governed by common law principles. The GI Act was followed by the Geographical Indications of
Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 (hereafter GI Rules). Under the GI Act, which
came into force on September 15, 2003, the Central Government established the Geographical
Indications Registry with all-India jurisdiction at Chennai, wherein the producers can apply for
registering their respective GIs. The GI is administered by the Controller General of Patents,
Designs and Trade Marks-who is the Registrar of Geographical Indications. Section 2(3) of the GI
Act defines geographical indications as follows:

"Geographical indication", in relation to goods, means an indication which identifies such goods
as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the
territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or
other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and in case
where such goods are manufactured goods one of the activities of either the production or of
processing or preparation of the goods concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality,
as the case may be.”1

The above definition of GI in the Indian Act enables non-geographic names such as "Basmati" or
"Alphonso" to be considered as a GI if the source of origin can be substantiated. Moreover, the
definition also takes into account different stages in the production activity-from processing to
manufacturing and emphasizes on human factors to ensure the protection of various GIs in the
realm of handicraft and hand-woven textile industry of India. In addition, while the TRIPS
provision under Article 23 relates to wines and spirits alone; under the Indian Act, the Central
Government has been given the discretion to accord similar protection to other categories of goods
also, by notifying such goods in the Official Gazette. The Government of India vide its notification
has extended additional protection to wines and spirits.2

1
Section 2(3) Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection Act), 1999
2
Geographical Indications Journal No. 44 (2012): 64
 4

As per the GI Act, the registration is undertaken in two parts: Part A relates to the registration of
GI and Part B relates to the registration of authorized users/proprietors such as names, addresses,
and descriptions indicated.

The Act stipulates that the application for registration can be moved by "any association of persons
or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law for time being in
force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of
registering a Gl" and has to apply in writing in the prescribed form in triplicate along with the
prescribed fee. The cost of application for each class of good is Rs. 5,000. A detailed glance at the
GI Act and Rules indicates that the entire process of filing for registration is time-consuming and
requires legal counsel. In case of no objection or opposition, the permissible time limit is that of 9
months for registration (3 months for acceptance from the constitution of the expert committee, 3
months for advertising from the date of examination report, 3 months from the date of advertising
for opposition) depending on the time. Nonetheless, there is no minimum time limit mentioned in
the Act or Rules for the constitution of the committee from the date of receipt of application.
Similarly, in case of an objection in the course of examination, there is no mention of the time limit
to inform the applicant about the details of the objection whereas the time limit for the applicant
to respond to the queries is clearly mentioned. If there is opposition to the advertized application,
the paperwork for the application to be registered gets unwieldy and the time prescribed could go
well beyond 24 months. Moreover, the registration has to be renewed every ten years.

The application for renewal must be made at any time not more than 6 months before the expiry
of the last registration of the GI or the authorized user. It must be filed by the registered proprietor,
failing which by any of the authorized users on record, as the case may be. If at the expiration of
the last registration of a GI or an authorized user, the renewal fees have not been paid, the Registrar
may remove the GI or the authorized user as the case may be from the register and advertise the
fact forthwith in the Journal.
 5

Chapter 3 | Issue and Challenges Related to Geographical

Indication in India
Intellectual Property Right as a discipline is quite in new in India and geographical indication with
compare to other sub disciplines of IPR is not established like copyrights and patents etc., due to
this there are still many unexplored channels in the sea of geographical indication and with time
and with new cases coming up the subject is also explored therefore, to understand the issues and
challenges of geographical indication the proper way is through understanding the various
examples from past related with the subject and the upcoming sections will tried to explain the
topic in this manner.

3.1 | Status of registration

Since 2003, the GI Registry in Chennai has received applications from different categories of goods
across India and abroad for registration. The total number of applications stands at 575 as on March
15, 2017. The number of applications filed increased from 33 in 2006-07 to 148 in 2011-12 and
then steadily declined to 17 in 2015-16 while it increased to 30 till December 2016. The
registrations too increased from 3 in 2006-07 to 45 in 2008-09 while it remained below 30 for the
rest of the years. The fluctuations in registration from year to year are due to the time lag involved
in the process of registration-from application, scrutiny, acceptance, advertisement in Journal,
opposition if any, and finally registration. The total number of registrations stands at 282 as on
November 30, 2016. These included 12 registrations from outside India. Of the 282 registered, one
can discern several categories of products-agricultural (82), handicrafts (90inclusive of 15 logos
of registered products), textiles (81 inclusive of seven logos of registered products), 19
(manufactured which included nine products from abroad), food stuff (nine of which three were
foreign goods) and natural goods (1). Alcoholic beverages account for the majority of registered
goods from abroad-Peruvian Pisco, Champagne, Napa Valley wine, Scotch Whisky, Cognac,
Porto, Douro, Tequila, and Prosecco whereas food stuff included processed cheese namely
Prosciutto di Parm, Parmigiano Reggiano, and Asiago.

The surge in registrations over time could well be due to the growing awareness about the GI
registration and specific policies of the State, but also raised concerns over the examination and
scrutiny of applications. This also led to tightening of procedures for granting of GI at the Registry
 6

and could explain the steady number of registrations in recent years. Nonetheless, there has been
little awareness in the mass media over the popularization of use of GI and most of the efforts have
come from government or government supported organizations who have been either facilitators
or proprietors or from NGOs who work at the grassroots. In this context, the following section(s)
highlight the major debates and controversies in the realm of GI in India.

3.2 | Role of the State

In the early years, GI proprietors were increasingly government agencies, statutory bodies, or
businesses that weren't directly involved in the manufacture of the items. A quick glance at the
registered GI proprietors reveals that over half of all registered goods (excluding manufactured
and food products) from India are owned by Government Departments, Boards, Academic
Institutions, and entities supported by the Government, followed by societies (cooperatives and
producers) (17%), associations (12%), Trust/NGOs/Foundations (5%), farmer producer
organisations and universities (10%), and combinations thereof between these groups. This brings
up the important question of whether the State qualifies to own GI goods. Because it is a collective
right, the proprietor's main duty is to advocate the interests of the producers. Furthermore, in order
to be acknowledged as an authorised user under Part B of the GI Act, the proprietor's consent is a
need. Therefore, the owner has the authority to both include and exclude users. The GI Act
mandates that the applicant must be a "association of persons or producers or any organisation or
authority established by or under any law" who represents the interests of the producers. It also
stipulates that the statement of case must include information about the producers on whose behalf
the application is being moved. The Act defines a "producer" as any person who: I produces goods
that are agricultural in nature, which includes those who process or package them; (ii) exploits
goods that are natural in nature; and (iii) makes or manufactures goods that are handicrafts or
industrial in nature, which includes those who trade or deal in such production, exploitation,
making, or manufacturing, as the case may be.

While the Act is clear about the associations of people or producers it mentions, it is necessary to
explore and examine in depth whether a government enterprise, statutory body, or department can
qualify as a legitimate applicant and whether it can effectively represent the interests of the
 7

producers even if it is involved in the processing, packaging, manufacturing, or trading of the

goods or products. It is intriguing to consider the Toda Embroidery case in this aspect.

GI application for Toda Embroidery was filed by Toda Nalavaazhvu Sangam and the Keystone
Foundation (KF) in September 2008. The former (TNS) is a society legally established under
Registrar of Udgamandalam, the Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu by the members of the Toda tribe
community to work for their progress while KF is a Public Charitable Trust presently involved in
promoting and developing Toda Embroidery among craftswomen. The application was accepted
after due consultations and was advertized in the GI Journal. On the basis of the advertisement,
opposition was filed by Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation stating that as an apex
body in charge of the development of handicrafts sector in Tamilnadu, they were the "rightfully
constituted body to that champions the cause and welfare of artisans in the State" and hence the
rightful proprietors or applicants. In this regard, various development assistance programmes and
support systems that were extended to the artisans of which Toda community members were also
beneficiaries were mentioned. Further, they pointed out that Poompuhar has been the
Commissionerate of Handicrafts since 2006-07 under the state government which focuses on the
development of artisans in handicrafts sector in a holistic manner. In these circumstances, they
were "shocked and disturbed to learn about the Applicant's move vide the application to the
Geographical Indication on Toda Embroidery" and claimed it had been filed "with the sole and
mala fide intention" of monopolizing a right which was rightfully theirs. They further opposed the
application on the ground that the applicants did not represent the interests of the artisans/actual
producers but the manufacturers instead. In the counterstatement, both TNS and KF clarified their
position and stated that while they indeed represented the interests of the producers, they had no
objection to Poompuhar being an authorized user since they too represented the interest of the
producers. Subsequently, the Order from the Registrar of GI pointed out that the applicants have
been able to demonstrate that they are legal entities who represent the interest of producers and
hence their application is legitimate. Further, the Order clarified that the opponent Poompuhar also
represented the interests of the producers and in such cases, the Intellectual Property Appellate
Board in its order2 indicated that the persons interested may be granted with status of co-applicant.

2
Intellectual Property Appellate Board , OA/2/2010/GI/CH
 8

The ultimate goal of litigants in these cases is to defend the interests of the producers, and because
the parties in this case shared the same mindset, the tribunal gave the applicant registered proprietor
status while also granting coapplicant status to the opponent, Poompuhar.

In addition, it was mandated that within six months of the order date, at least 20 approved users
pertaining to the product had to be registered. In the case of Toda embroidery, the State agency
objected, asserting that it was the rightful owner because it represented everyone's interests. As a
result, it was given the position of a co-applicant. Similar engagements by the State in various
capacities-Government Departments, Enterprises, Boards, Apex Cooperative Organizations,
Patent Information Centres-can be seen across registered goods as well as applications pending
registrations. A few examples registered GIs, the proprietors of which are government or supported
by government institutions, are Darjeeling Tea, Assam Tea, Nilgiri Tea (Tea Board of India);
Monsooned Malabar Arabica Coffee, Monsooned Malabar

Robusta Coffee (Coffee Board); Mango Malihabadi Dusseheri (National Horticulture Board);
Malabar Pepper, Coorg Green Cardamom, Alleppey Green Cardamom, Byadagi Chilli, Guntur
Sanam Chilli (Spice Board); Udupi Brinjal, Mysore Jasmine, Udupi Jasmine, Appemidi Mango
(Department of Horticulture, Government of Karnataka) and so on. Nonetheless, the labeling of
government as a representative of interests of all producers might not always hold good. This is
especially so when they are involved in the process of production and marketing (through
cooperatives formed by producers of agricultural and non-agricultural goods). This might lead to
favoring those producers linked with the government and excluding others. The example of
Mysore Silk GI and Kancheepuram Saree wherein the registered proprietors (Karnataka State Silk
Industries Corporation (KSIC) in case of the former and Department of Handlooms and Textiles,
Government of Tamil Nadu in case of latter) cannot claim exclusivity. There were several
producers engaged in production of these goods outside the ambit of the registered proprietors and
hence could not claim property rights. Marie-Vivien also suggests that producers could also feel
excluded when the government is not a direct producer. This could be true in case of a number of
agricultural products being filed either by state government departments (Horticulture) or
universities (Kerala Agricultural University for Pokkali/Navra/Wayanad Jeerakasala/Wayanad
Gandhakasala Rice varieties for instance).
 9

The discussion above makes it evident that the State, through a number of its agencies, actively
participates in the registration of GIs in India. This is very different from the legal systems in place
in other parts of the world, such as the French legal system, which was greatly affected by the
European legal system, where there has been a continuous withdrawal of the state and a growing
role for producer groups.

3.3 |Definitional ambiguities-geographical area and representing

the interests of the producers
In this section, ambiguities with regard to demarcation of geographical area and inadequacies with
respect to representing the interest of producers are discussed by highlighting select cases of GI
application and registration.

Five applications for petroleum goods produced by Reliance Industries Limited were filed in
September 2005 which was advertized in the GI journal. The oppositions against the applications
however raised concerns about (i) exclusivity of these goods; (ii) lack of clarity over specificity of
the products due to geographical origin; and (iii) ambiguity over the "collective interests of
producers" who were represented by RIL. Interestingly, the application had cited ISO standards to
establish the uniqueness and specificity of the product. Subsequently, RIL withdrew its
applications in respect of those from Jamnagar refinery while the application on the
KrishnaGodavari gas was treated as abandoned by the GI Registry.

With regard to Basmati rice, the application was first filed in 2004 by Heritage Foundation. The
foundation, which represents rice millers and exporters, was refused the GI tag by the Registry on
the grounds that it was technically flawed. However, it is also argued that that as a private trust,
the Foundation did not adequately represent the primary stakeholders-the cultivators of Basmati.
Even before the rejection of this application, the Government of India, in October 2008, had
empowered the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority
(APEDA) to register and protect intellectual property rights for certain special agriculture products
such as Basmati rice in India and elsewhere. In fact, APEDA Rules were amended to include
measures for registration and protection of Geographical Indications as required under the GI Act
 10

and such other Intellectual Property Rights in relation to Basmati rice or similar rights in relation
to such other Scheduled products, which the Central Government may notify.3

Similarly, in case of Ganjam Goat Ghee and Poddar Diamond too, the applicants could not
adequately demonstrate that they represented the interest(s) of the producers. The application for
Ganjam Goat Ghee filed by Orissa Veterinary College, OUAT in July 2009 was moved by an
individual under a specific project titled All India Coordinated Research Project on Goat
Improvement carried out by the Department of Animal Breeding & Genetics, Orissa Veterinary
College under Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology situated in Bhubaneswar and was
thus refused the GI tag since s(he) did not represent the producer group(s). Likewise, the
application for Poddar Diamond was abandoned due to lack of prosecution. The applicant was a
private entity and could not provide enough evidence to show that the application was filed in the
interest of the producers.

3.4 | Appropriation of rights in the name of Divine affairs: the

case of Payyannur Pavithra Ring
Yet another interesting aspect of GI registration in India has been the commodification and
commercialization of belief in the name of GI. The cases in point are the registration and
subsequent remand of proprietorship of Payyannur Pavithra Ring and registration of Tirupati
Laddu.' This section discusses in detail the case of Payyannur Pavithra ring. The application for
the GI was moved by Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans & Development Society (PPRADS) (C/O
Ms. Lakshmi Jewellery). After due review and scrutiny, the consultative group recommended the
good for registration and it was advertized in the GI Journal. Subsequent to this, a notice of
opposition as filed by Mr. K. Balakrishnan (Proprietor Sree Lakshmi Jewellery) against the grant
of GI to the above-mentioned society.' 4 The opponent pointed out that the society was not
representing the producers of the ring and hence cannot be give the sole proprietorship. Moreover,
only one among the members of the society (Mr. P. Venugopalan) was privy to knowledge about

3
APEDA Rules 1986 S.O. 2835(E) (Amendments-4), New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry available at
http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/corporate-info/APEDA Rules/Rules_03122008.pdf
4
Compiled from GI journals and GI registry, http://ipindia.nic.in/girindia/
 11

the craftsmanship of the ring and others were businessmen. Even the former, it was pointed out,
did not belong to the Choovatta Valappil (CV) family (the family whom the applicant claimed had
been traditionally preparing the rings). The opponent contested that it was actually the Mavichery
Thekke Veettil family who invented ring in 1794 and not 1792 as mentioned in the application.
Most importantly, the notice of opposition pointed out that there are many goldsmiths in Payyannur
who are aware of the art of making the Payyannur "pavithra" (pure) knot ring and hence the society
cannot claim sole proprietorship. It was also referred to that the manufactured ring is first offered
to the deity of Lord Subrahmanya before use and hence one cannot claim monopoly over matters
of religious sentiments. Nonetheless, the opposition was not sustained and the Registry's order5
gave the nod to the registration of the ring as GI. It observed that the artisans were entitled to the
registration and religious sentiment was not a sufficient reason to bar registration. The Tribunal
observed that the quality and style of manufacturing was retained by different producers without
loss of originality and hence was not considered common to trade.

In response to this, Subhash Jewellery, Payyannur represented by C. V. Dayanandan had filed a

writ petition in the Madras High Court to quash the order of the GI registry allowing the registration
of the ring.8 However, the Madras High Court had dismissed the order on the ground that the
appellant should have appealed before the IPAB before filing the writ petition. In the meantime,
the application for registration for Payyannur ring was accepted and the certificate for GI was
issued. Nevertheless, following the dismissal of writ petition by the Madras High Court, an appeal
before the IPAB was filed by Subhash Jewellery. In November 2011, the counsel of the appellant
had appealed for a stay but given the fact that there was no ground for stay, the IPAB instead
instructed him to publish it in a popular Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi since Payyannur was
a small town in Kerala and artisans may not be aware of the proceedings.'6 This led to several
affidavits filed by Sri C.P.K. Raghavan, Secretary of Sree Choovatta Valappil Tharavad
Dharmadaiva Paripalana Trust formed by the members of the Tharavad. The intervening petitioner
had also submitted certain photographs which indicated that the PPRADS was misusing the

5
(2009 (41) PTC 719)
8
WP No. 897 of 2010
6
OA/2/2010/GI/CH and M.P.Nos 1/2010 & 269/2012 in OA/2/2010/GI/CH dated 14 November 2012, Intellectual
Property Appellate Board available in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/255-2012.htm accessed on May 2, 2013.
 12

registration to secure benefit for his enterprise, M/s. Lakshmi Jewellery. One among the several
appeals included one from Mr. K. Balakrishnan, who had initially filed the opposition to the
application, urging to allow the appeal. The said affidavit pointed out that many cases were still
pending before the honourable courts in Payyannur regarding the right of ownership the ring and
hence the appeal may be allowed. Moreover, it was pointed out that the applicant of the registration
themselves admit that the manufacturing of the ring takes place under the aegis of the High Priest
of the Subrahmanya Temple and hence it is a matter of religious interest. Therefore, the application
should not be allowed based on Section 9 (a) and (d) of the GI Act. Based on these, IPAB directed
the Registry to remove the 1st respondent/ applicant as well as the registered proprietor of the GI
from the register and remanded the matter to the GI Registrar.

The order noted that though there was no denial of the specific link between the product and the
said place of origin, the GI Act through Section 11 and various subsections emphasize on interest
of the producers. Since traders could also be producers in case of handicrafts and industrial goods
(under section 2(k) iii of the Act), the application moved by businessmen was not against the
procedures laid down in the GI Act; but the response to the Public Notice did indicate that the
interested persons had no knowledge about the application or the subsequent registration or
appeals. The Order, thus, took objection to the claim of the applicant (PPRADS) that they
represented the interests of the producer.

The Order also took serious note of the appellant's observation that the Consultative group did not
make a field visit to the place and that the quorum was not full. In this regard, the Order referred
to Rule 33 of the GI Rules which refers interalia to persons well versed in the varied intricacies in
the field. The Consultative Group on Payyannur Ring GI did not contain any member who had
expertise or familiarity with the craftsmanship of gold jewellery.7 The Order maintained that one
cannot ignore the word "this field" in Rule 33. It further suggested that the report of the
Consultative Group should be a comprehensive document to understand the process of grant of GI
including the list of persons consulted with names and details, brief account of their statement,
date of visit, details of materials collected. Most importantly, the Order remarked that "In

7
OA/2/2010/GI/CH and M.P.Nos 1/2010 & 269/2012 in OA/2/2010/GI/CH dated 14
November 2012, Intellectual Property Appellate Board available in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/255-2012.htm accessed
on May 2, 2013)
 13

Intellectual Property Right related matters be it GI, Patents or Trademarks, the dispute is really not
inter-partes alone, there is always the issue of public interest." Thus, there were procedural lapses
in the filing of the application and the incidence of other inadequacies in the proceedings as well,
it was indicated that the name of the applicant be remanded back from the register.

Given the content of this Order, it is expected to influence the filing and proceedings of application
and registrations of GI. In no uncertain terms, the Order of IPAB has emphasized that the main
objective of the GI Act is the protection of interest of producers: most importantly the primary
producers who manufacture the goods. The Order acknowledged the fact that the Act is in an initial
stage and the interested parties would be unaware of the Law and hence detailed directions
especially on dissemination of information as envisaged in the Land Acquisition Act has been
suggested. The Order also observed that since GI Journal was not accessed by the public,
advertising in the Journal would not be as effective as a public notice in vernacular language
analogous to the one in Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, the Order observed that it was important
to display the details of the application "in prominent places in the territory, region or locality as
the case may be," to bring it to the notice of those who are directly engaged in different stages of
production activities. This directive becomes especially significant given the fact that majority of
the registrations and applications are being made by government bodies and this could undermine
the interests of the producers even though the government bodies like Poompuhar stake claim
citing the protection of interested parties.8 Nonetheless, the Order did not raise any objections to
the fact that it is a matter of religious faith-the ring is offered to Lord Subrahmanya before use. In
fact, the Order mentions that "the name of territory-Payyannurderives its origin from the words
Oor of the Payyan i.e. the land of Lord Subrahmanya and it is believed that the Pavithra Knot helps
to activate the Kundalini sakti" and thereby concurs with the fact that religious beliefs are no bar
to registration. This could well lead to most of the places of worship to register their naivedyam or
prasadam (sacred offering) as GI.

The fact that whether such registrations would be against the spirit of section 9 (d) of the GI Act
need to be debated in legal, academic, policy and civil society realms. Through the Order, IPAB

8
George, M. P. (2012). IPAB on Payyannur Ring Spicy IP, available at https://spicyip.com/2012/11/ipab-
onpayyannur-ring.html)
 14

had left several options available for the opponents with regard to registration of the product: to
register the respondent and the intervener as joint proprietors; proprietor of Subhash Jewellers to
be an authorized user or as a member of the association. The GI Registry was directed to hear all
concerned parties and take a decision. Subsequently, a fresh application was filed by M/s. Sree
Choovatta Vallapil Tharavad Dharmadaiva Paripalana Trust for registration of the ring. The
Consultative committee met the applicants and reached the conclusion that there are around four
groups in the artisanal cluster and approximately 12-15 artisans were involved in the making of
the ring and that they were unable to form a consortium or conglomerate due to individual, family,
local and business interests. In addition, the Trust was a private entity whose membership were
open only to family members (that too male) whereas the society mentioned in the application was
formed for the purpose of applying for GI wherein the majority of the member were traders. In
other words, the committee felt that the applicants did not satisfy the necessary conditions to be a
Registered Proprietor and nor were they ready to join hands to form an association. In fact, they
were opposed to grant of GI in favor of the other. Thus, until there was possibility of forming an
association which accommodates the interests of the artisans, the committee felt that it was not
possible to accept either of the applications. 9 In other words, while the GI for the product is
recognized, the proprietorship is still unresolved.13

9
Order of the Registrar available at
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GlDOC/6/6%20-%20Gl%20-200rder%200f%2ORegistrar%20-%2022-04-2014.pdf
13
Soumya Vinayan, Geographical Indications in India: Issues and Challenges - An Overview, 20 J. World
Intell. Prop. 119 (2017).
 15

Chapter 4 | Conclusion
Despite the fact that GIs have been popular for many centuries and that international laws
governing them date as far back as 1883, India's GI Act is still in its very early stages. This does
not imply, however, that the idea of GI is a novel phenomenon in India's industrial and trading
sectors. India has a wealth of GIs in both the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, which
greatly increases their significance. But right now, the emphasis is on the registration of GI
products, promising or not. This is understandable considering that the Act is still in its infancy
and that producers and dealers may not be highly aware of the Act's social and economic
significance and benefits, let alone the registration procedures.
 16

Chapter 5 | Bibliography
1. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection Act), 1999
2. Geographical Indications Journal available at http://ipindia.nic.in/girindia/
3. APEDA Rules 1986 S.O. 2835(E) (Amendments-4), New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and
Industry available at http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/corporate-info/APEDA
Rules/Rules_03122008.pdf
4. George, M. P. (2012). IPAB on Payyannur Ring Spicy IP,
available at https://spicyip.com/2012/11/ipab-on-payyannur-ring.html)
5. Soumya Vinayan, Geographical Indications in India: Issues and Challenges – An Overview, 20
J. World Intell. Prop. 119 (2017).
6. Reddy, P. (2012).APEDA discloses legal expenses on 'Basmati'-Rs. 7,62,00,000 and counting
[online]. Available at http://spicyip.com/2012/07/apeda-discloses-legal-expenses-on.html
7. Banerjee, M., & Naushad, S. (2010). Grant of geographical indication designation to Tirupati
Laddu: Commercialization of faith? NUJS Law Review, 3(1),