subject: Tirupati laddu GI removal – Is the Registry preconceived of the outcome? [print this page] Tirupati laddu GI removal Is the Registry preconceived of the outcome?
Tehelka reports that the GI Registry has issued notice toTirupati Tirumala Devasthanams (TTD), seeking counter-statement from them in the rectification process of Tirupati laddu GI. The news report quotes Mr. P.H. Kurian, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, as saying, "There will be a hearing, once we will get counter-statement from TTD in this regard."
Interestingly, a news report from The Hindu' dated February 20, 2010 cites a submission made by GI registry before Madras High Court that there is no illegality in registering Tirupati laddus as a Geographical Indication. It was asserted in a counter affidavit filed by Deputy Registrar of GI on behalf of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.
The said news report from Chennai reads as follows.
"The Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai, has said that it has not committed any illegality by registering Tirupati laddus as a Geographical Indication (GI). The registration did nothing to damage the country's secular image.
In his counter to a public interest litigation petition challenging the grant of G.I. registration for the laddus, filed through the Assistant Solicitor-General of India, J. Ravindran, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and G.I., G.L.Verma, said no person had filed any opposition for registration of the G.I nor till now rectification proceedings had been initiated by any aggrieved person to expunge the marks. Any person aggrieved by the registration could file rectification application for cancellation of the registered G.I.
The G.I. Registry in its wisdom had rightly allowed the registration after proper examination by an expert group.
The registry had not committed any illegality in the registration as alleged by the petitioner.
In his petition, J.Mohanraj of Mylapore had said the G.I. registration for the laddus could not have been done in view of section 9 (d) of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act."
Now the rectification petition comes for hearing before the same Deputy Registrar and the same Controller General, the duo, who had filed the counter affidavit in Madras High Court. It will be interesting to see how the things proceed further.
Meanwhile, Praveen Anand, the legal advisor to TTD on this issue, exuded confidence, while commenting to Tehelka, that there were "negligible chances" for the GI tag to be removed. "It is a case where the GI was granted after detailed considerations and I do not think it can be removed so easily," Anand told Tehelka reporter.
Tehelka report also quotes G.L. Verma, the Deputy Registrar of GI - "There are several procedures which we have to follow. We will proceed further after getting response from TTD,"
Rule 66 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002 says the procedure to be followed for rectification. It says "Within two months or within such further period not exceeding two months in the aggregate from the receipt by a registered proprietor of the copy of the application mentioned in Rule 65 from the Registrar, he shall send to the Registrar and to the person making the application on Form GI 2 a counter-statement in triplicate of the grounds on which the application is contested. The Registrar shall serve a copy of the counter-statement on the person making the application within one month of the receipt of the same. The provisions of Rules 44 to 51 shall thereafter apply mutatis mutandis to the further proceedings on the application. The Registrar shall not, however, rectify the register or remove the geographical indication or any authorized user from the register merely because the registered proprietor or the authorized user has not filed a counter-statement unless he is satisfied that the delay in filing the counter-statement is wilful and is not justified by the circumstances of the case. In any case of doubt any party may apply to the Registrar for directions."
Further, Rule 67 provides that third parties may intervene in the rectification process (Form GI6 B, Fees Rs. 500). The rule reads "Any person alleging interest in a registered geographical indication in respect of which an application is made under Rule 65 may apply on Form GI 6 for leave to intervene, stating the nature of his interest, and the Registrar may refuse or grant such leave after hearing if so required the parties concerned, upon such terms and conditions including undertakings or conditions as to security for cost as he may deem fit to impose. "
The rectification process will take a wild turn, if some one intervenes and seeks the removal of the Deputy Registrar and the Controller General? There is no doubt that it would be an interesting ride to the hearing day.
