Tirupati laddu GI - Petition to IPAB for 'suo motu' action

Share:    

It is learnt from leading news papers thatMadras High Court has dismissed the writ

petition challenging the grant of Geographical Indication (GI) tag to Tirupati Laddu' and directed that the petitioner may approach IPAB . I wonder if general public have recourse to IPAB in the form of public interest petition', as they are not aggrieved persons' or persons interested' per se. Since IPAB has the status equivalent to High Courts and all the IP cases in High Court stands transferred to IPAB with effect from 6th October 2003, it is imperative that IPAB should also entertain Public Interest through letter petitions and 'suo motu' actions.

I, R. S. Praveen Raj, aged 31 years, S/o P. Rajagopal is working as Scientist in National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram under Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). I was formerly working as Examiner of Patents & Designs in Patent Office, Chennai branch, which is under Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks before joining CSIR. Taking cognisance of Article 51A of the constitution, I plead for a suo motu' action from IPAB in the matter of revocation of GI granted to Tirupati laddu', a temple offering.Earlier I had written a letter-petition to Supreme Court in this regard and later withdrew the same, as the case came before Madras High Court. Let me now seek recourse to IPAB purely on public interest on the following grounds. (Being an IP Academic and Researcher, I thought that it may not be appropriate to represent myself as an aggrieved person', who can approach IPAB through proper form and fee).

a) Grant of GI tag on "Tirupati laddu" is violative of Section 11 (1) of the Geographical Indication of Goods Act read with Rules 32(5) and 32(6)(a)&(f), since GIs are supposed to be collective community rights protecting a group of producers. The statement of case filed by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), the trust that administers Lord Venkateswara Temple along with the GI application which was published in the Geographical Indication Journal No 28 from page 38 to page 66 states that the cost of a small laddu is Rs.25 and a big laddu is Rs. 100 and that on an average, 70,000 devotees visit the temple every day (at page 58). It implies that TTD makes a huge profit everyday by the sale of these laddus. However the legislative intent of Geographical Indications Act is miserably failed in the present case, as TTD is the sole producer of 'Tirupathi Laddu' and the sole beneficiary of its sales as per the statement given by the applicant for GI. While the laddus are made by workers of the temple and hired labour, there is no mention of any other beneficiary in the application except TTD. (Vide page 50 of the journal)

b) TTD also states in its application that "The laddu gets its reputation not from its taste alone but from its sanctity as they are first offered as naivedyam to the Lord" (at page 40, 60 and 64 of the GI journal No. 28). This statement attracts the provisions in section 9(a) and section 9(d) of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Share:    

c) Exclusive rights for products of creative mind' are being allowed as IPR with reasonable restrictions, only because it is essential for industrial growth of the country. No industrial purpose is served by the grant of goods' status to a temple offering. More over, Allowing Monopoly' on goods produced by private entities would defeat the spirit of GI protection, which is meant for protecting, preserving and promoting collective community rights as opposed to private monopoly rights. It is also appropriate to mention here that Monopoly' is an alien to Democracy.

d) GI Act is meant for the protection of "Goods" only and the act defines "Goods" as any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry. Food stuff also is included in the definition under section 2(1)(f) of GI Act provided that such food stuff can be stocked, preserved and sold as a "goods". Of course, Tirupati Laddu' cannot be classified as one among agricultural goods, natural goods or handicraft, leaving an option to schedule it under industrial goods. But it is quite hard for devotees to believe that temple offerings are equivalent to manufactured goods or commercially significant commodities

e) GI tag on 'Tirupati laddu' passes a wrong message to the public that temple prasadams (sacred foods) are akin to "industrial goods". Further, TTD themselves mentions in their application (at page 42 of the GI journal), these laddus are offered as prasadam only to the devotees who visit Tirumala and offer worship to Lord Venkateswara here and not to any one else. Therefore to get Tirupathi laddu' one has to visit the abode of the Lord Venkateswara at Tirumala. The said laddus cannot be obtained by any other means in the world'. That means, Tirupathi Laddu does not deserve a "goods" status and therefore it requires no GI tag. On the other hand, a GI tag on a temple prasadam is exemplary of commercialization of divine affairs. There are several temples in South India which are known for their prasadam offered to devotees, say for example the famous aravana payasam' and appam' from sabarimala temple, Kerala. All these prasadams may seek a GI status tomorrow. Then, it would be an irrevocable damage to the values of the society.

f) Grant of GI to Tirupati Laddu is a serious prejudice to Article 25 and Article 26 of Indian Constitution. It is dangerous to allow private appropriation (especially in the form of IPR) of religious symbols. If any infringement of IPR obtained by temple authorities 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). Shockingly, Indian Penal Code is toothless to punish commercial exploitation of object of worship. (Justice S S Parkar in Bombay High Court observed in Maulana Ayyub Kadri Vs Ganesh Beedi Works in September 1999 that use of the deity's pictures on the pouches did not constitute an offence under Section 295 of IPC because there was no intention to insult a place of worship, neither had the company damaged/defiled an object of religious worship. The judge added that even if the pouches were thrown on the street, it did not constitute deliberate defilement of the picture of Lord Ganesha)

g) 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). Nullifying the 'proprietary rights' owned by religious establishments is a difficult task. The reference made in this regard by Honourable Supreme Court of India on 31st July, 2009 is very interesting. The bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Mukundakam Sharma asked the central government to ensure that there was no unauthorised construction of temples, churches, mosques and gurdwaras on public streets/public places. "As far as the existing religious places are concerned, we can understand that demolition or removing them may create some law and order problem. But why don't you consider preventing such constructions in future across the country?"- Mr. Justice Bhandari told the Solicitor-General, Mr. Subramaniam. It will be more difficult in the case of 'Intellectual Property' as it is not tangible. Mixing religion with IPR will have serious consequence.
Share:    

In abstract, the GI protection for "Tirupati laddu" passes a message that the "places of worship" are "business outfits" or origin of trade and commerce'.

The infamous TRIPS forming part of WTO finally forays into Religion and faith. It is like playing with fire and petrol. The review of GI Registry's decision seems to be the need of the hour. Honourable Chairman, IPAB may kindly proceed 'suo motu' in the matter in view of the larger public interest and greater social implications involved in it.

Tirupati laddu GI - Petition to IPAB for 'suo motu' action

By: R.S. Praveen Raj

POST COMMENT

How Much Should I Feed My Pet, Doc? Eye Health Issues For Boston Terriers If You've An Eye For Fashion, Don't Miss The Heavenly Designer Dog Clothing Now Being Shown Online Considering A Dog? Some Things You Should Know Mass Petroleum & Anadarko: Kansas Is Not Just For Toto Or Alice How To Deal With A Fearful Dog Insurance allocation is necessary when one is moving Affenpinscher Competiciones En El Hiphop QUALIDADES DO LIDER / DOZE COMPETÊNCIAS ESSENCIAIS PARA A GESTÃO DE PESSOAS When You Compare Pet Insurance Mass Petroleum On Pennytobuck.com Watchlist For Monday July 26th Why Should You Track Competitor Backlinks