Recently, GOI has given mandate to APEDA to work on filling of GI for basmati rice.
The Genesis of GI Act rest on the fact that the owner of the GI should ensure benefits of GI registration should go the producers of the product. With the rise of third party ownership of GI registration there is strong possibility that such benefits will dilute or may not accrue to the producers.
The best model to own GI is the producers themselves. The most appropriate example of this is Darjeeling TEA, where the TEA board, which is a producers organisation, own the Darjeeling TEA GI. Needless to say that after GI TEA producers have been jointly benefited.
With 100 GIs another undesired development observed is mad rush for GI registration. There are different kinds of arguments like in one the cases in Karnataka a particular type of banana is registered to revive its production.
It seems that there is need for more sensitisation on the significance of GI in three different contexts. Regional Context- where GI can become one of the tools to empower local economy secondly, at the national level where through GI misuse of potential market may be avoided third at international level where GI may help in better respect for our products in international markets.
The issues such as quality control, good supply chain management and traceability of GI products require special attentions by the owners of GI.
The use of Information Communication Technology specially use of web in popularising of GI products, list of producers and unique qualities may be very useful.
2 comments:
Registered GI’s without ‘Authorised user’- a nullity
In India around 97 GI’s have been registered till date. None of the registered GI’s is having its registered authorised user. The GI Act 1999 makes it mandatory to have two kind of registration firstly the GI and secondly ‘authorised user’. The registered GI without having its authorised user carries no significance. No efforts have been made till date by the Govt. of India to have registration of authorised user simultaneously along with its related GI.
Nothing can be achieved in GI Laws without having its authorised users. Legally registration of GI and non registration of linked authorised user shall render existing true owner of GI an illegal user and liable for various criminal prosecution in GI laws.
Are we protecting National Heritage and Traditional Knowledge (its true owners) or murdering the same.
It calls for immediate introspection.
Why GI office at Chennai only?
In Indian context, GI has much wider significance. India is full of potential GI’s and perhaps the only country in entire world to have maximum GI’s.
Despite so, the Government of India has established only one exclusive office at Chennai for entire country. Whereas the other regions of the country are having maximum potential GI’s. The offices of Trade Mark, Copy Right, and Patent are established region wise by the Government.
Having only one office at Chennai has been a great hurdle in enforcement of GI laws in India. The accessibility to the poor gross rot holders is tremendously limited.
It would be more appropriate and fruitful to have GI registry simultaneously along with the other offices of IP Rights established in various regions of India.
Post a Comment