Basumathi Case

7/27/2019 Basumathi Case

1/14Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143209

AASSTTUUDDYYOOFFTTHHEEBBAASSMMAATTIICCAASSEE ((IINNDDIIAA--UUSSBBAASSMMAATTIIRRIICCEEDDIISSPPUUTTEE))::GGEEOOGGRRAAPPHHIICCAALL

IINNDDIICCAATTIIOONNPPEERRSSPPEECCTTIIVVEE IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

FollowingtheAgreementonTraderelatedaspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS)in

theWorld TradeOrganization (WTO), mostcountries are committed to the provision of

certain minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property. Such intellectual

propertyrights(IPRs) raisecrucialissuesfor thefuturedevelopmentof agricultureandare

particularlyimportantforadevelopingcountrylikeIndia.Theseissuesarebeingextensively

debatedinIndiaandhavecontributedtothepreparationoflegislationonIPRswithrespecttoplantvarietyprotection,patentsandgeographical indications. BasmatiCasewasaneye-

openerforIndia,inthesensethatitbroughtintospotlightaninstanceofgrossexploitation

ofdevelopingcountyrights.

GeographicalIndicationsarerelativelynewinstrumentswhicharegainingrapidpopularityin

the trade and economic scenario, which recognize the heritage of a country in certain

specialized goods and seek to protect the same.GI indicates the special protection that

particulargoodsenjoybythevirtueof theirgeographicaloriginwhichrendersthemspecial

andpeculiarquality.

TTHHEEFFAACCTTSS

Originally from IndiaandPakistan,Basmatibecameacontroversial issueafterRiceTec,a

Texas-based company, in1997, patented some typesof ricethey developed as American

basmati.

RiceTec Inc, had been trying to enter the international Basmatimarket with brands likeKasmatiandTexmati.Ultimately,thecompanyclaimedtohavedevelopedanewstrainof

aromaticricebyinterbreedingbasmatiwithanothervariety.Theysoughttocalltheallegedly-

newvarietyasTexmatiorAmericanBasmati.

RiceTec Inc, was issued the Patent number 5663484 onBasmati rice lines and grains onSeptember2,1997.

ThiswasobjectedtobytwoIndiannongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs)CentreforFood Safety, an international NGO that campaigns against biopiracy, and the Research

FoundationforScience,TechnologyandEcology,anIndianenvironmentalNGOwhofiled


2/14Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143209

legalpetitions in theUnited States. TheCentre forScientificand IndustrialResearch also

objectedtoit.

TheysoughttradeprotectionforbasmatiriceoftheIndiansubcontinentandjasminericeofThailand. They demanded amendment of U.S. rice standards to specify that the term

basmaticanbeusedonly for ricegrownin IndiaandPakistan,and jasminefor theThai

rice.

TheIndiangovernment,afterputtingtogethertheevidence,officiallychallengedthepatentinJune2000.

TTHHEEIISSSSUUEESS

Variousissueshavebeenraisedfollowingthecontroversy,theanswerstowhicharehopedtobeansweredthroughtheemerginglawofpatentsandgeographicalindications.Someofthe

majorissuesare:

Whether the term basmati is a generic one to describe aromatic rice, or does it referspecificallytothelongaromaticricegrowninIndiaandPakistan?

WhetherthestraindevelopedbyRiceTecisanovelty?WhetherRiceTecisguiltyofbiopiracy?WhetherUSgovernmentsdecisiontograntapatentfortheprizedBasmatiriceviolatesthe

InternationalTreatyonTradeRelatedIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS)?

WhetherthebasmatipatentshouldberevokedinthelightofprotestsfromIndia?

IImmppoorrttaanncceeooffBBaassmmaattiiiinnIInnddiiaaaannddPPaakkiissttaannEEccoonnoommyy

RiceisanimportantaspectoflifeintheSoutheastandotherpartsofAsia.Forcenturies,it

hasbeenthecornerstoneoftheirfoodandculture.Duringthisperiod,farmingcommunities

throughouttheregiondeveloped,nurtured,andconservedoverahundredthousanddistinct

varieties of rice to suit different tastes and needs.1 It is for this reason that patenting of

BasmatibyRiceTecInc.isperceivedasnotonlyintellectualpropertyandculturaltheft,butit

alsodirectlythreatensfarmcommunitiesinSoutheastAsia.AccordingtoDrVandanaShiva,

directorof aDelhi-based researchfoundationwhichmonitors issuesinvolvingpatentsand

biopiracy,themainaimforobtainingthepatentbyRiceTecInc.istofooltheconsumersin

believing thereisnodifferencebetweenspuriousBasmatiandrealBasmati.Moreover,she

1

K.C. Kailasa,Law of Trade Marks & Geographical Indications (Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2003).


3/14

claimsthetheft involvedintheBasmatipatentis,therefore,threefold: a theftofcollectiveintellectual and

biodiversityheritageonIndianfarmers,a theftfromIndiantradersandexporterswhosemarketsarebeing

stolenbyRiceTecInc.,andfinallyadeceptionofconsumerssinceRiceTecisusingastolennameBasmati for

ricewhicharederivedfromIndianricebutnotgrowninIndia,andhencearenotthesamequality.2Infact,

BasmatiricehasbeenoneofthefastestgrowingexportitemsfromIndiainrecentyears.In

theyeartoMarch1997, Indiaexportedmore thanhalfamilliontonnesofBasmatito the

Gulf,SaudiArabia,EuropeandtheUnitedStates,asmallpartof its totalriceexports,but

highinvalue.Moresubstantively, Indianfarmersexport$250millioninBasmatieveryyear

andU.S.isatargetmarket.RiceTecInc.hadattemptedtosellitslong-grainriceinEurope

under such brand names as Texmati and Kasmati but notas Basmati.However, if the

patentisnotrevoked,RiceTecInc.,cannowsellitsriceunderthebrandnameBasmatiwhichwilldefinitelycutintoIndiasandPakistansglobalmarketshare,especiallyasthericegrown

intheUScouldbesoldcheaperthantheIndianandPakistanivarieties.3

CCAASSEEAANNAALLYYSSIISS

RiceTec has got a patent for three things: growing rice plants with certain characteristics

identical to Basmati, the grain produced by suchplants, and themethod of selecting rice

basedonastarchindex(SI)testdevisedbyRiceTec,Inc.4

Thepatentwaschallengedonthe factthat theplantvarietiesandgrainsalready existasastapleinIndia.575percentofU.S.riceimportsarefromThailandandthattheremainderis

fromIndiaandPakistanandbothvarietiesarericethatcannotbegrownintheUnitedStates.

Thelegaltheory is that thepatent isnotnoveland foran invention that isobvious,being

basedonricethatisalreadybeingimportedintheUnitedStates,thereforeitshouldnothave

beengrantedinthefirstplace.

2

http://www.rediff.com/business/1998/mar/12rice.htm visited on 10.09.2007.

3http://www.american.edu/TED/basmati.htm visited on 01.09.2007.

4Basmati Rice: US Firm Withdraws Patent Claim, The Hindustan Times (September 28, 2000) at http://

www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/280900/fryNAT05.asp visited on 07.10.2007.

5Dr. Vandana Shiva,Basmati Biopiracy: Ricetec Must Withdraw All Patent Claims For Basmati Seeds And

Plants, The Hindustan Times (November 20, 2000) at

http://www.vshiva.net/Articles/Basmati%20Biopiracy.htm visited on 07.10.2007


4/14

Indiasattorneysalsoseekto challengetheuseofthetermbasmatiinconjunctionwiththepatentandinmarketingoftherice.6Suchuseofthetermcreatesconfusionastogeographic

originandusurpsthegoodwillandrecognitionestablishedwithbasmatiricegrownandsold

fromIndia.

Asaresultofthere-examinationapplicationfiledbytheIndiangovernment,RiceTecagreed

to withdraw several of the claims. In January 29, 2002, the United States Patent and

TrademarkOfficeissuedaReexaminationCertificatecancelingclaims1-7,10,and14-20(the

broadclaimscoveringthericeplant)outof24claimsandenteredamendmentstoclaims12-

13onthedefinitionofchalkinessofthericegrains 7

Trademark law could also be a basis for challenging theuse of basmati. RiceTec and toprevent it from marketing basmati rice in a way that creates confusion with the Indianproduct.But,inordertobesuccessfulonsuchaclaim,theIndiangovernmentwouldhaveto

show likelihood of confusion among consumers.8 RiceTec did not trademark the term

basmatiandithasbeencarefulinmarketingitsproductsoasnottousethetermbasmatias

anindicationofsource.Forexample,intheUnitedKingdom,RiceTecmarketstheproduct

asTexmatirice,sinceBritishlawprotectstheuseofthetermbasmatitorefertoricecoming

fromIndiaandPakistan.RiceTecalsousesTexmatiinitsU.S.sales,butdoesusetheterm

basmatiinitspackaging.TheIndiangovernmentcouldarguethatthisuseofthetermbasmati

is what creates confusion among consumers. The term basmati need not be federally

registeredasatrademarkforIndiatoraisetheclaim.9However,RiceTeccouldhaveacounter

argument that India cannot bring an infringement action because basmati could not be

protected as a trademark, it really being adescriptivemark; thewordmeans fragrant and

hencedescribesamajorattributeoftheproduct.10Descriptivemarksareprotectedonlyifthey

havesecondarymeaning,thatis,thetermmakestheordinaryconsumerrecognizethesource

oftheproductasopposedtotheproductitself. 11In thisvein,RiceTeccouldalsoarguethat

6Ibid.

7Re-examination Certificate C1 (4525th)(Jan. 29, 2002).

815 USC 1114(a)-(b) (specifying likelihood of confusion as an element of trademark infringement claim).

915 USC 1125(a) (allowing claims for confusing or deceptive marks even if the marks are not registered).

1015 USC 1052(e)(1) and 15 USC 1052(f) (statutory limits on registrability of descriptive marks absent

showing of secondary meaning),
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1114&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1125&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1052&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1052&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1052&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1052&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1125&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Splithttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?vc=0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&DB=1000546&DocName=15USCAS1114&FindType=L&AP=&fn=_top&utid=%7b7ECC26C9-4646-4479-8C29-F40B2E81EFBC%7d&rs=WLW7.10&mt=WorldJournals&vr=2.0&sv=Split


5/14

thetermbasmatihasbecomeagenerictermforaparticularcategoryofriceandhencecannot

beprotected.12However,nowitismuchasettledpositionthatgeographicalindicatorsneed

notnecessarilyindicatetheplaceoforigin,itcouldsignifytheproduct itselfaslongasitis

knowntopossesscertainqualitiesbythevirtueofitsbelongingtocertainplace.13

IfIndialosesthefightagainstRiceTec,theissueremainsofwhatIndiacanstrategicallydoto

protect itsrightsinbasmatirice.U.S.trademarklawdoesnotofferasuccessfulavenuefor

India.TheTRIPSagreementexpresslyprotectsindicatorsofgeographicoriginandpermits

legal recourse through the WTO process to discontinue use of misleading geographic

indicators.TheproblemwithrelyingonTRIPSisthebasmatiisnotageographicindicator;

thewordliterally,describesthescentoftherice,notitsgeographicsource.Onetacticthatthe

governmenthasrecentlypursued istoenact itsownlawgrantingprotectiontomarks thatindicate geographic origin. Basmati is arguably protected under these recently enacted

provisions.OneargumentthattheIndiangovernmentmadeinchallengingRiceTecspatent

is that basmati should be treated like champagne and burgundy. TheTRIPS agreement

expressly forbids trademark protection for geographic indicators as applied to wine and

spirits. TheUnited States has amended its trademark law to reflect this prohibition. The

Indian governmentsought thesameprotectionfor riceandotheragriculturalproducts, as

accorded towines and spirits.Unfortunately, thereis nobasis in treaty or statute for this

treatment.However, the governments enactment of laws designed to protect geographic

indicatorsdemonstratesonestep to accord thesameprotectionto agriculturalproductsas

currentlygiventowineandspirits.Thestrategyisthatoncetermslikebasmatigainprotection

domestically,pressuresmayarisetoaccordprotectioninternationally.However,thisisatbest

alongtermstrategy.14

TThhee IImmppoorrttaannccee ooffGGeeooggrraapphhiiccaall IInnddiiccaattiioonn

115 USC 1052(f);

12Shubha Ghosh, Traditional Knowledge, Patent and New Mercantilism, 85 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Socy

885.

13Jayashree Watal,Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture, Indian Council for Research on Inernational

Economic Relations.

14Ibid.


6/14

Ageographical indication isageographical name signifying that aproduct originates ina

countryoraspecificlocalitywhereithasbeentraditionallyproduced.Whileatrademarkisa

matter of private law, ageographical indicationwould beunderpublic law and cannotbe

ownedbyasinglegroupof individuals;anyonewhoproducesthesaidgoodsinthatregion

canusethegeographicalindicatorfortheproduct.15Inrecentyears,geographicalindication

(GIs)hasemergedasoneofthemostimportantinstrumentofprotectingquality,reputation

or other character of goods essentially attributable to their geographical origin.16 Like

trademark,geographicalindicationisvaluabletoprovidence.Itisasource

identifierandindicatorofquality.Ithelpstopromotegoodsofparticularregionorcountry

andeligibleforrelieffromactsofinfringementand/orunfaircompetition.17Theconcern

shown by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World TradeOrganization (WTO) gave new impetus to protection of GIs.However, according to the

WIPOStandingCommitteeontheLawofTrademarks,IndustrialDesignsandGeographical

Indications a geographical indication is best protected under trademark and unfair

competition law. Trademark having acquired in good faith had to be protected against

conflicting geographical indications.18 GIs associated with products originating from a

country,regionorlocalitywherethequality,reputationorothercharacteristicsoftheproduct

areessentiallyattributableto itsgeographicalorigin.Mostgeographical indicationsrelate to

agricultural products or those derived from them, as in the case of wines and spirits.

Protection of suchmarks prevents third parties from passing off their products as those

originating inthegivenregion.Famousexamplesare Champagne for sparklingwine and

RoquefortforcheesefromareasofthesenamesinFranceorDarjeelingforteafromthis

districtinIndia.It isnotnecessaryfortheseindicationstobegeographicalnamesasinthe

caseofFetaforcheesefromGreeceorBasmatiforricefromIndiaandPakistanasthere

arenoplaces,localitiesorregionswiththesenames.Plantvarietiesdevelopedwithtraditional

knowledge and associated with a particular region can also be protected as geographical

indications.Theadvantageinsuchprotectionisthatitisnottime-limited,unlikethecaseof

15

Temporary Reprieve, Economic and Political Weekly, September 1, 2001.

16United States Patent and Trademark Office, available at

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/globalip/geographicalindication.htm

17Ibid.

18Draft Report of the International Bureau of WIPO, Geneva 13-17 July, 1998, p 2.


7/14

plantpatentsorplantbreedersrights.However,needlesstosay,commercialbenefitscanbe

derived from the protection of geographical indications only when the name becomes

reasonablyfamous.19

LLEEGGAALLPPRROOCCEEDDUURREESS

Priorto1999therewasnospecificlegislationtoregulategeographicalindication.Itwasinthe

year1999 thatIndiaincompliancewithitsobligationunderTRIPSAgreementenactedthe

GeographicalIndicationsofGoods(RegistrationandProtection)Act,1999.Thisactseeksto

provideforregistrationandbetterprotectionGIsrelatingtogoods.Itexcludesunauthorized

personsfrommisusingGIs.Thiswouldprotecttheinterestofproducers,manufacturersand

thereby consumer from being deceived by the falsity of geographical origin to economic

prosperityoftheproducerofsuchgoodsandpromotegoodsbearingGIsinexportmarket.

Unlessageographicalindicationisprotectedinthecountryofitsorigin,thereisnoobligation

underthe agreement underArticle 22 of the TRIPSAgreement onforother countries to

extendreciprocalprotection.Itisinthiscontextthattheactwasenacted.20Theactprovides

registration in twoparts PartA is related to theregistration ofGIs; PartB relatesto the

registrationof authorized users/proprietors such as names, addresses and descriptionsare

indicated.

TheIndianjudiciaryhasplayedasignificantrole,particularlyintheabsenceofanyenforced

legislation,inprotectingGIs.TheyhaveentertainedpetitionsincasesofinfringementofGIs

thatmisleadstheconsumerastotheplaceoforiginorconstitutesunfaircompetition.India

has also taken legislative measures by enacting the Geographical Indications of Goods

(Registration andProtection)Act, 1999alongwith theGeographical IndicationsofGoods

(RegistrationandProtection)Rules,2002whichonimplementationwouldgoalongwayto

protectGIsandprovideamodelforothercountriestofollow.21

19

Jayashree Watal,Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture, Indian Council for Research on Inernational

Economic Relations. WORKING PAPER NO.44 available at www.icrier.org/pdf/jayashreeW.PDF

20Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Bill.

21Suresh C. Srivastava, Geographical Indications and Legal Framework in India, Economic and Political

Weekly, September 20, 2003


8/14

In Imperial Tobacco Co v. Registrar, Trademarks22 the Calcutta High Court explained to the

followingconceptofgeographictermnamely:

Geographicaltermsandwordsincommonusedesignatealocality,acountry,orasectionof

countrywhichcannotbemonopolizedastrademarks;butageographicalnamenotusedingeographical sense to denote place oforigin,butused in an arbitrary or fancifulway toindicate origin or ownership regardless of location, may be sustained as a validtrademarkAgeographicalnameaccordingtoitsordinarysignificationissuchmarkinherentlyorotherwiseincapableofregistrationsubjecttominorexceptions.

Section2(e)ofthe[Indian]GeographicalIndicationsofGoods(RegistrationandProtection)

Act,1999definesGIsinrelationtogoodstomean:

An indications which identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods ormanufacturedgoodsasoriginating,ormanufacturedintheterritoryofcountry,oraregionorlocalityinthatterritory,whereagivenquality,reputationorothercharacteristicofsuchgoodsisessentiallyattributabletoitsgeographicaloriginandincasewheresuchgoodsaremanufactured goods one of the activities of either the production or of processing orpreparationofthegoodsconcernedtakesplace insuchterritory,regionor locality,as thecasemaybe.

RREEGGIISSTTRRAATTIIOONN

Section9prohibitstheregistrationofGIs(i) theuseofwhichis likely todeceiveorcause

confusion,or(ii)theuseofwhichwouldbecontrarytoanylawforthetimebeinginforce,or

(iii)whichcomprisesorcontainsscandalousorobscenematter,or(iv)whichcomprisesor

containsanymatter likely tohurtthereligiousfeelingofanyclassorsectionof citizensof

India,or(v)whichwouldotherwisebedisentitledtoprotectioninacourt,or(vi)whichare

determinedtobegenericnamesorindicationsofgoodsandare,therefore,notorceasedto

beprotectedinthecountryoforiginorwhichhavefallenintodisuseinthatcountry,or(vii)

whichalthoughliterallytrueastotheterritory,regionorlocalityinwhichthegoodsoriginate,

butfalsely representto thepersons thatthegoodsoriginate in another territory,regionor

locality.TheregistrationofaGIsshallbeforaperiodof10yearsorforaperiodtillthedateonwhichtheregistrationofgeographicalindicationinrespectofwhichtheauthorizedusers

is registered expires, whichever is earlier. After the registrar accepts an application for

registrationtheGIswillberegistered.Registrationisaprimafacieevidenceofthevalidityof

the GIs. No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent or recover

22

AIR 1977 Cal 413 at 422,


9/14

damages forthe infringementofunregisteredGIs.It alsoprovides thatnothing in thisact

shallbedeemedtoaffecttherightofactionagainstanypersonforpassingoffgoodsasthe

goods of another person. 23 A registration of GIs shall, if valid, give to the registered

proprietorandallauthorizeduserwhosenamehasbeenenteredintheregister,therightto

obtain relief in respectof infringement of theGIs.However,authorizedusers alone shall

havetheexclusiverighttotheuseoftheGIsinrelationtothegoodsinrespectofwhichthe

GIs are registered. This right is subject to the conditions and limitations to which the

registrationissubject.TwoormoreauthorizedusersofaregisteredGIsshallhaveco-equal

rights.

PPRROOTTEECCTTIIOONN

Amongcriminalremedies,theGeographicalIndicationsofGoods(Registrationand

Protection)Act,1999containspenalprovisionforviolationofvariousprovisionsrelatingto

GIsgivenbelow

(i) FalsifyingandfalselyapplyingGIstogoods.24(ii) SellinggoodstowhichfalseGIsisapplied.25(iii) FalselyrepresentingaGIsasregistered.26(iv) ImproperlydescribingaplaceofbusinessasconnectedwiththeGIsregistry.(v) Falsificationofentriesintheregister.

Civil remedies:The suit for infringementhastobe filed in courtnot inferiortothatofa

districtcourthavingjurisdiction.InanysuitforinfringementofGIsthedefendantpleadsthat

registrationofthe

GIsrelatingtoplaintiffisinvalid,thecourttryingthesuitshall:

(i) IfanyproceedingsforrectificationoftheregistertotheGIsrelatingtoplaintiffordefendantarependingbeforetheregistraror theAppellateBoard, stay thesuit

pendingthefinaldisposalofsuchproceedings;

23

S. 58. of the GI Act.

24S. 38 and 39 of the GI Act.

25S. 40 of the GI Act.

26S. 42 of the GI Act.


10/14

(ii) If no such proceedings are pending and the court is satisfied that the plearegarding the invalidity of the registration of the GIs relating to plaintiff or

defendantisprimafacietenable,raiseanissueregardingthesameandadjournthe

case foraperiodof threemonthsfromthedateof theframingof theissuein

order to enable the party concerned to apply to the Appellate Board for

rectificationoftheregister.27

IINNTTEERRNNAATTIIOONNAALLIINNTTEELLLLEECCTTUUAALLPPRROOPPEERRTTYYLLAAWWRREEGGIIMMEE

TheGIsoriginatesfromtheParisConvention,1983.EventhoughtheConventiondidnot

usethesaidexpressionArticle1(2)of theConventionused theexpressions appellationof

originandindicationsofsource.ThescopeoftheaforesaidexpressionhasbeendelineatedinLisbonandMadridagreement.Theformerdelineatestheappellationoforigintomean28:

geographical name of a country, region, or locality,which serves to designate a productoriginatingtherein,thequalityandcharacteristicsofwhicharedueexclusivelyoressentiallytothegeographicenvironment,includingnaturalandhumanfactors

Thecountryoforigin is thecountrywhosename,orthecountry inwhichis situated the

region or locality whose name, constitutes the appellation of origin which has given the

productitsreputation29.

Thelatterdefinestheexpressionindicationsofsourcetomean30:

Goodsbearinga falseordeceptiveindicationsbywhichoneofthecountriestowhichthisagreementapplies, ora placesituatedtherein, directlyorindirectlyindicatedasbeingthecountryorplaceoforigin.

However,theexpressionGIsunderintheTRIPSAgreementhasbeendefinedas

"agoodoriginating in theterritoryofamember,ora regionor locality in that territory,where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentiallyattributabletoitsgeographicalorigin."

27

S. 57 of the GI Act.

28Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention.

29Article 2(2),Id.

30Article 1(2),Id.


11/14

Geographicalindications(GIs)asaninstrumentof intellectualpropertyprotectionarevery

much an invention of the TRIPS Agreement. TRIPS Article 22.1 defines geographical

indicationsmorebroadlyas

indicationswhichidentifyagoodasoriginatingintheterritoryofaMember,oraregionorlocalityinthatterritory,whereagivenquality,reputationorothercharacteristicofthegoodisessentiallyattributabletoitsgeographicalorigin.

Acarefulreadingclarifiesthebroadnessofthenotion31:

GIsaretobeunderstood asageneralconcept thatpoint to the geographical originof aproduct in a given country, region or locality: inotherwords, the notionnow focuseson

indicationswhichidentifyagood.Denominations thatarenotdirectgeographicalnames

(suchasBasmati)arealsofeasible.

Reputationisanadditional elementconstituting thenotionofGI, thusgoingbeyond theLisbonAgreementsfocusonqualityandcharacteristicsofaproduct.

Articles22to24ofPartII,SectionIIItheTRIPSAgreementprescribesminimumstandards

ofprotectionofGIsthatWTOmembersmustprovide.Article23oftheTRIPSAgreement,

whichgrantshigherstatusonlytowinesandspiritsandexcludesothergoodsandproducts

outof itspurview,hasgeneratedconsiderableresentment.Thisdiscriminationor imbalance

inprotectionhasledtodemandsforadditionalprotectiontoothergoodsandproductsfrom

anumberofcountriesincludingIndia. 32

EEMMEERRGGIINNGGCCOONNCCEERRNNSS

DDoommeessttiiccLLeeggiissllaattiioonn

In thewake of the problemswith patents that India has experienced in recent years, the

importance of enacting laws for conserving biodiversity and controlling piracy aswell as

intellectualprotectionlegislationthatconformtointernationallawshasbeenrealized.ThereisawidespreadbeliefthatRiceTecInc., tookoutapatentonBasmationlybecauseofweak,

non-existent Indian lawsand thegovernmentsphilosophicalattitude that naturalproducts

shouldnotbepatented.According to someIndianExperts in the field of geneticwealth,

31

Agriculture Trade and Food Security: Issues and Options in the WTO Negotiations from the Perspective

of Developing Countries, FAO, 1999.

32Suresh C. Srivastava, Geographical Indications and Legal Framework in India, Economic and Political

Weekly, September 20, 2003.


12/14

Indianeedsto formulatea long-term strategy toprotect its bio-resourcesfrom futurebio-

piracy and or theft.33 India and Pakistanhave agreed to tackle the crisis jointly tohavea

strong case against RiceTec Inc. British traders are also supporting India and Pakistan.

According toHoward Jones,marketing controllerof theUKsprivately owneddistributor

TildaLtd,TrueBasmaticanonlybegrowninIndiaorPakistan.Wewillsupporttheminany

way if itsnecessary.34TheMiddleEast is also showing supportbyonly labeling Indianor

PakistaniriceasBasmati.FollowingtheBasmatiricecrisis,Indiaformulatedlegislationinthe

form of theGeographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999,

however,thelawintheregardisyettosolidifyandformastrongfoundation.Also,trainingis

requiredtoequipemergingandnewlawyersinthelegalfraternitywithtoolstocombatthese

pressingissues.

TTwwoo--ttiieerreeddPPrrootteeccttiioonniinnTTRRIIPPSS

Underthecurrent provisions of theTRIPSAgreement,geographical indications forwines

andspiritsareaffordednear-absoluteprotectionwhilegeographicalindicationsfor allother

goodsareonlyprotectedwherethegeographicalindicationfailstheso-calledmisleadingtest

or constitutes an act of unfair competition.35Accordingly, under the current TRIPS

Agreementframework,useof thewordDarjeelingtodescribeatypeof teafromIndiais

entitled to a lower standard of protection than use of theword Tennessee to describe

whiskeyfromthatU.S.state.36The two-tieredsystemof protectinggeographicalindications

underthe1994AgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRightshasbeen

thesubjectofincreasinglyheateddebateswithintheWorldTradeOrganizationoverthepast

two years. Despite protests by the United States and otherWTO Members, a vociferous

group ofWTO Members at theNovember 2001WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha,

Qatar succeeded in improving the prospects that the current system of geographical

33

http://www.rediff.com/business/1998/mar/23rice.htm visited on 10.09.2007

34http://www.business-standard.com/98apr07/economy4.htm visited on 10.09.2007.

35TRIPS Agreement, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994,

Art. 22; WTO Secretariat, Proposal from Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India,

Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and

Venezuela, IP/C/W/247/Rev.1 at 1 (May 17, 2001)

36WTO Secretariat, Communication from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand,

Paraguay and the United States, IP/C/W/289 at 4 (June 29, 2001)


13/14

indication protectionwill be revised.37 Proponents of extended protection argue that the

TRIPS Agreement should be amended so that all goods receive the higher standard of

protectioncurrentlyaccordedgeographicalindicationsforwinesandspirits. 38

37

World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference, Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (Nov.

20, 2001), http://www.wto.org

38WTO Secretariat, Communication from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Kenya,

Liechtenstein, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey, IP/C/W/204/Rev. 1 at 2 (Oct. 2,

2000).


14/14

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

RiceTechasbeenforcedtogiveupthetitleofitspatent,ithasbeenforcedtogiveup15of

its20claims,includingthosewiththemostfar-reachingimplicationsrelatedtobiopiracy.The

survivingclaimsnowneedtobechallengedaspartofthelargermovementagainstpatentson

lifeandpatentsonrice.Thecampaignagainstpatentonriceisnowbeinglaunchedbythe

ResearchFoundationagainstpatentsheldbyMonsantoandNovartis, includingpatentson

Golden Rice. Geographical Indications as a concept and as a subject of legislation is

relativelynewinIndiaandthereforeitisrequiredthatthearenaiswell-researcheduponand

academicallyaswellaspracticallydelvedintosoastoensurethatwearebetterequippedto

addresssuchinstancedofviolationmorepromptlyinfuture.

Geographical Indications signify a core instrument in protecting the rights relating to the culture andheritageofseveralmanufacturersandproducersofgoodswhichhavebeenoftraditional importance.Also

in international tradescenariothey areofvital importancesincethey indicatespecialization innatural

resource and open new scope for several countrieswhichmightbe otherwise lacking in technologically

updatedresources.ThelayeredstructureoftheTRIPSagreementinthisaspecthasbecomea subjectif

majordebateandneeds tobeaddressedassoonaspossiblewithopinionbeing takenequally from the

developingandthedevelopedworld.Procedural andprotectiveprovisionshavetobehighlightedsuchthat

thelawsofthedifferentcountriesareinconformitywitheachother.

Basumathi Case

Documents

Transcript of Basumathi Case