Geographic Awake: Bridging Gaps in Geographical Indication Awareness Across India

Introduction

Every culture is characterized by the products and developments that arise from the place of its members’ residence and are transmitted across the generations. These items acquire quality and other attributes from their origin, making them unique to that region. For many years, other States and authorities have recognized and capitalized on their huge commercial potential. Since India is the home of many of these items, it must give them the right care and protection.

The purpose of this Blog is to examine the problems associated with using the current legal system to protect geographical indicators. Through this blog, I want to break the ice i.e. show the harsh reality the Indian Artisans are facing due to socioeconomic challenges and problems related to cross-territorial production of agricultural and foodstuffs with the case analysis of Alphonso mangoes.

Unveiling Merchant Privileges in the Shadows of Craftsmanship

Developing nations like India require financial and technical support to market their products internationally and attain the sustainability of GI. The main issue in India is that, in contrast to producers who have the real interest, merchants pocket the dragon’s share of the economic or financial advantages made possible by the GI. A few examples, such as the glassware from Firozabad and Lucknow Chikankari, demonstrate that merely registering GI will not help to preserve and promote the skill or provide any appreciable benefits for the craftsmen. The intended strategy, which calls for a significant investment of time, money, and patience in order to get the international GI brand and introduce GI products to the global market, may be beyond the means of the average artisan or rural producer. It also includes the monitoring costs associated with creating a self-GI mechanism or using IP firms’ legal services to keep an eye out for cases of infringement. Numerous states have incurred significant costs for the legal defence of their GIs against infringement. For instance, the legal battles against instances of infringement brought forth by the Tea Board for Darjeeling Tea and the Pochampally Handloom Weavers Co-op Society Ltd for Pochampally Ikat have incurred significant financial costs.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Local vendors are protected, which is one of the main reasons GIs were established. Although GIs were put in place to safeguard and help local vendors, this goal has not always been met although rights have been granted, local vendors have not always benefited from them. Numerous factors could be to blame for this, including piggyback riders in the market who defraud genuine vendors of their customer base by selling consumers counterfeit items; a lack of organization and knowledge among these local producers; improper GI implementation; etc. The issues besetting any collective right further erode the position of the local vendor: when there is disunity within the group, the group as a whole suffers. Moreover, businesses with stronger negotiating positions may wind up benefiting disproportionately from GI protection, blinding the smaller manufacturers in the process. According to field research by The Energy and Resources Institute (“TERI”), farmers were not benefiting from the GI tag in the situations of some GI-protected items, such as Malabar pepper and Vazhakulam pineapple.

It’s possible that India unintentionally made it harder for its Artisans to obtain GI protection for their agricultural goods. An indication becomes generic when it returns to the public domain and is no longer protected in its country of origin or has ceased to be used there. This is stated in Section 9 of the Act, which forbids the registration of GIs that are determined to be generic names or indications of goods. It should be noted that TRIPS just gives the nation of origin the authority to determine whether or not a specific geographic name has become generic. Therefore, the governments and tribunals of WTO members will determine whether a specific GI still needs to be protected or if it has become generic. The argument makes the case that India should have limited the application of genericide as much as possible, meaning that its courts should have been able to decide which terms are generic and which are not based solely on the circumstances in India (the country of origin) and not on the state of consumption. The phrase is more likely to be generic the more contexts and scenarios we take into account. Especially considering the fervour with which industries in the ‘New World’ are striving to exploit GIs.

Challenges Encountered by Artisans and Producers in Geographical Indication Filings

The main social issue in India is people’s ignorance of the GI Laws. Even with the GI Act being passed by the Indian legislative in 1999, many common artisans and rural producers are unaware that their produce or skilled items are worthy of protection. They don’t know how to apply for and obtain GI protection. They even know less in the event that their GI is being abused and deceived by someone else. They are unaware of the various remedies to stop this kind of usage. Additional analysis has revealed that the registration status varies greatly. Any group of people or organization formed by law that represents the interests of the producers may apply for the registration of a GI mark in India under Section 11[9] of the GI Act. In addition, any manufacturer of a commodity for which a GI mark has been issued may apply to be registered as an authorized user of that mark under Section 17[10] of the GI Act. It’s interesting to note that the Act restricts the use of GI marks to licensed users exclusively.

This generally suggests that the Act’s structure is that, although while an organization is able to obtain a GI mark, only authorized users are permitted to use such a mark. This indicates that the Act’s goal is to strengthen the authorized user’s position in situations where a group of users band together to create an association that can acquire the GI designation. But the actual situation on the ground is far from accomplishing this goal. Regarding the Act’s design, Basole stated that the Indian GI regime totally eliminates the traditional craftsman’s or artisan’s role, whose interests are meant to be safeguarded by GI. This is due to the fact that an Indian craftsman lacks the resources—cash, time, or even knowledge—necessary to submit an application for registration or status as a “authorised user.” As a result, in practice, businesses who hire these artisans really profit commercially from the registered GI mark, but the genuine artisans who have amassed this kind of knowledge are not granted access to such benefits. Moreover, academicians have contended that neither the GI Act nor the GI Rules contain any particular clauses that establish whether the purported proprietor or producer genuinely represents the interests of the producers or whether the purported producer is a producer of the item at all. In this regard, it is important to note that the GI Act gives a producer the ability to contest the applicant’s application on the grounds that the applicant does not adequately represent the producer’s interests. When a producer makes such an opposition, the authorities under the Act, after carefully examining the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, have refused to register the GI mark if the applicant association does not represent the producers’ interests or if their primary goal is to obtain financial gain. Aside from the time it takes to decide on these oppositions, the producers might not always be able to object to every unauthorized registration. Furthermore, if unauthorized registrations are not stopped, it can make it harder for authorized users to register. In order to reduce unauthorized registrations, it would be advantageous to tighten the initial burden of demonstrating that the application organization is representing the interests of the producers.

Authorized users also had to deal with the need that an application for authorization be submitted in tandem with the registered proprietor and that the proprietor provide a “no-objection certificate.” However, the recently passed GI Amendment Rules, 2020 have partially addressed this issue. The only need under the new regulations is to serve a copy of the application on the registered proprietor; an application for an authorised user can now be submitted without a “no-objection certificate” from the proprietor. Additionally, the registration price has been virtually fully waived. As a result, the statute has given authorized users some time to register.

Challenges in Cross-Territorial Production of Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, with a Focus on Alphonso Mangoes.

An indication that 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,” is what is meant to be understood by a geographical indication (GI) under the terms of the GI Act. However, names that do not refer to a nation, region, or locale may still be eligible for registration under the Act as long as they are related to a particular region and are used in connection with goods that originate there. This gives room to protect other well-known symbols, such as “Alphonso mangoes” and “Basmati rice.” It is underlined that other nations, including the EU—Feta is not a part of Greece, for example—also follow this method, therefore it is not exclusive to India. The renowned export variety mango known as Alphonso is farmed in the coastal regions of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, and Karnataka. The EU had placed a temporary restriction on the import of in 2014. Alphonso mangoes and four other Indian crops, significantly disrupting bilateral commercial relations between the EU and India due to the decision’s effect on the farmers yearly income approximations of earnings. The EU Standing Committee on Plant Health made the judgment after discovering that 207 consignments of Alphonso mangoes and the other vegetables, which were brought into the EU from India, were tainted by pests such fruit flies and other pests that needed to be quarantined.

In January 2015, the EU progressively relaxed the embargo. Alphonso mangoes are not yet officially recognized as a Geographic Indication (GI) in India; however, the GI Registry is now accepting applications to do so. The announcement of the EU ban brought attention to how crucial quality certification is for agricultural products. Thus, the Alphonso mango warrants our attention in this chapter as a soon-to-be registered GI with enormous export potential. The Export Development Authority for Agricultural and Processed Food Products (“APEDA”), a statutory organization set up by the Indian government in 1986, is tasked with inspecting and certifying agricultural food products in India. APEDA establishes guidelines and requirements for agricultural products with the intention of exporting them. It also has the authority to monitor storage facilities where these items are held in order to guarantee their quality.

To maintain the highest quality requirements for mangoes, modern packing houses have been established in major production zones to guarantee a consistent quality throughout export consignments.

CONCLUSION 

This blog highlighted the main issues of how merchants looted the small producers who were the main beneficiaries of the G.I. as these small producers lacked education and didn’t have financial support to register the products under the G.I. Act. Lastly, the Alphonso mango case study emphasizes the necessity for Indian authorities’ inspection frameworks to include the SPS criteria of importing destinations following the EU prohibition. It is unclear how market dynamics will unfold in this industry because of the GI Act’s weak point, which allows GI approved users to link inspection structures with compliance but not the other way around. Given the variety of problems that GIs encounter across the nation, this may be a benefit. However, while a decentralized mechanism with distinct approaches to implementing a quality control system may be the best course of action, it is equally important that the Legislature take into consideration either adding a chapter to the GI Act that addresses the responsibilities of Inspection Bodies or creating a new statute specifically for this purpose. Policymakers in India can’t afford to ignore the quality-control discussion since it guarantees adherence to quality, the policy debate surrounding GIs as quality control is essential to maintaining the premium value of GIs.

Author: Debangshu Das, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

References

• Gautami Govindarajan & Madhav Kapoor, Why The Protection of Geographical Indications In India Needs An Overhaul, Volume-VIII-Issue-I-39-65, NLR, 2019.
• Ganesh Makam, Geographical Indications and Cultural Protection in India: Harnessing Intellectual Property for Regional Development, 4490648, SSRN, 2023.
• Lakshmi Prasad A.N, Importance of Geographical Indications in India and Various Challenges Involved, 4632718, SSRN, 2023.