Can employees/contract labourers be deemed as 'producers' under Geographical Indication (GI) Act ?

Can employees/contract labourers be deemed as 'producers' under Geographical Indication (GI) Act

?

Subsequent to my application for therectification of GI No. 121 Tirupathi Laddu', I have written a letter to the GI Registry with the following contents.

"The crux of the matter referenced above lies in the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 as to whether the GI applicant in the instant case represents the interest of the producers and also whether the definition of "producers" includes employees/contract labourers of the organisation.

Since the application for removal of GI tag to Tirupati laddu was moved purely on public interest, I wish to leave it totally to the tribunal's wisdom than prosecuting the case as an isolated one. It is therefore prayed that this communication be deemed as compliance to Rule 44 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002 intimating (in advance) no desire to adduce any evidence in support of rectification plea but intending to rely on the facts stated in the application (GI - 6 A), irrespective of whether what would be the content of counter-statement filed by the GI proprietor under Rule 66.

It is also requested that the Registrar may kindly proceed ex-parte in the matter under Rule 50 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002 upon receipt of the necessary documents from the proprietor."

Section 11(1) of Geographical Indication of Goods Act, 1999 says - Any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under law for the time being in forcerepresenting the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication.

Rule 32(5), Rule 32(6)(a) and Rule 32(6)(f) also mandates disclosure of the particulars of the "producers"

Rule 32(5) of the Geographical Indication of Goods Rules, 2002 says - Every application for the registration of a geographical indication shall be made in the prescribed forms and shall contain a statement containing such particulars of the producers of the concerned goods proposed to be initially registered. The statement may contain such other particulars of the producers mentioned in Section 11(2)(f) including a collective reference to all the producers of the goods in respect of which the application is made.

Rule 32(6)(a) says - The statement contained in the application shall also include an affidavit as to how the applicant claims to represent the interest of the association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law.

Rule 32(6)(f) says - The statement contained in the application shall also include the full name and address of the association of persons or organisation or authority, representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods.

The eligibility to apply for GI is being substantiated by the proprietor of Tirupati laddu GI (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam TTD) in the counter affidavit filed before Madras High Court in response toa writ petition challenging the validity of Tirupati laddu GI. The counter affidavit makes an interesting statement that the GI protection obtained is community centric aimed at maintaining the tradition and quality associated with Tirupati Laddu and the betterment of the community involved in the manufacturing and selling of the Tirupati laddu. Can TTD establish the 'interest of producers' by this averment ? Does it mean that the definition of "producers" under section 11(1) includes employees/contract labourers of the organisation ?

This argument looks very trivial or rather funny.

TTD states in their GI application, which was published in the Geographical Indication Journal No 28 from page 38 to page 66,that TTD has the absolute monopoly over the production of 'Tirupathi Laddu'. While the laddus are made by workers of the temple (TTD employees) and hired labour, there is no mention of any other beneficiary in the application except TTD.

Allowing the GI registration of 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 worth mentioning here that "monopoly" is an alien to "democracy", and hence banned in a democratic republic. However "exclusive rights" for the "products of creative mind" are being allowed as Intellectual Property Rights with reasonable restrictions, only because it is essential for industrial growth. No industrial purpose is served by the grant of "goods" status to a temple offering.

POST COMMENT

Engraved Plaques: Giving a Well Deserved Award for Employees Getting The Perfect Employee Through Staffing Agencies Employee Satisfaction Survey Samples Occam's Razor and How to Reduce Employee Turnover Recognizing the Contributions of Employees of Abuja Companies Building Maintenance: Providing Your Employees with Peace of Mind The Employee With The Hearing Impairment Scrutinize Employees Activities Employee Benefits Administration Company in Tulsa Top Ten Ways an Employee Can Ruin Your Day Four Keys To Employee Retention – True Total Rewards The Importance Of Retaining Employees Why Fit Employees Are Better