Geographical Indication

I. Historical Analysis

The roots of GI protection in India can be traced back to the pre-independence era when
various regions produced distinct products with unique characteristics. However, the legal
framework for protecting these products was absent. Products like Darjeeling tea, Basmati
rice, and various handicrafts had already gained recognition for their quality and
distinctiveness.

India's pursuit of GI protection gained momentum with its independence in 1947 and the
subsequent evolution of intellectual property laws. The pivotal moment in the history of GI
protection was India's accession to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. TRIPS
introduced international standards for GI protection and obligated member countries to enact
legislation in this regard.

In response to its TRIPS obligations, India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods
(Registration and Protection) Act in 1999. This legislation marked a significant milestone in
the protection of GIs in the country. It provided a legal framework for the registration and
protection of geographical indications, setting up the Geographical Indications Registry for
this purpose.

One of the key features of the GI Act was its amendment in 2002 to strengthen GI protection
and align with international standards. The amendments ensured that only products truly
originating from a specific geographical area could bear the registered GI, preventing
unauthorized use and misrepresentation. It also allowed for the recognition and protection of
foreign GIs in India, based on international agreements.

The GI Act not only focused on protection but also emphasized the promotion and marketing
of products with GIs. It played a vital role in boosting the reputation and marketability of
traditional Indian products in domestic and international markets. For example, Darjeeling tea
and Basmati rice, both registered GIs, gained global recognition and protection.
Several landmark cases underscored the importance of GI protection. Cases such as the Neem
patent dispute and the turmeric wound-healing patent dispute in the United States brought to
light the significance of protecting traditional knowledge and indigenous products. India's
opposition to these patents resulted in their cancellation, highlighting the need for strong GI
protection.

The GI Act has continued to evolve with the registration of new geographical indications and
amendments to refine and improve the protection and registration processes. The Act remains
dynamic, adapting to changing legal requirements and international agreements. The Act has
been instrumental in preserving traditional knowledge, safeguarding the economic interests of
local communities, and enhancing the reputation of Indian products in the global
marketplace. As India continues to recognize the value of its cultural heritage and unique
products, the GI Act remains a crucial tool for protecting, promoting, and celebrating its rich
diversity.

II. An overview of the law

1.1. The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI
Act”) - The following provisions of the GI Act will be analyzed for the purpose of this
report:
 Section 11 - Application for registration
 Section 12 - Withdrawal of acceptance
 Section 14 - Opposition to registration
 Section 16 - Registration
 Section 21 - Rights conferred by registration
 Section 22 - Infringement or registered geographical indications
 Section 27 - Power to cancel or vary registration and to rectify the register
 Section 28 - Correction of register
 Section 29 - Alteration of registered geographical indications
 Geographical Indication

1. Subhash Jewellry v Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans & Development Society

(OA/2/2010/GI/CHN

Facts:
In this case, the IPAB was dealing with an appeal against the order of the Registry
where it accepted an application for registration of jewellery as a GI. The
applicant/first respondent, who claimed to be a registered society and traders of the
ring, prayed for granting of GI on grounds that it represents interests of producers of
the ring. The same was opposed by K.Balakrishnan, proprietor of Lakshmi Jewellery.
He contended that the society is not competent to apply for sole ownership. It was
argued that the applicant does not represent interests of true producers and artisans of
the ring. According to him, among the family members of applicant only one member
possessed requisite knowledge and skills to make this ring.

Initially, the appellant filed a case before the Madras HC but the same was dismissed
as it should have been filed before the IPAB first. The Appellant’s Counsel argues that
on the date when application for GI was made in name of Payyannur Pavithra Ring
Artisans Society, this society was not a body recognized by Law. Appellant asserted
that there were disputes regarding Right to ownership of the ring and several artisans
filed affidavits stating that the “society” in question has no connection with artisans.
Furthermore, objections were also raised against composition of the consultative
group that had given an opinion on claim of geographical indication.

Ratio:
The case analysed section 11 and particulars mentioned under section 11(2) of the GI
Act. Court explained that section 11 clearly states that the Sine qua non for
entertaining an application for registration is that the application should demonstrate
that the association represents interest of producers of the goods or the said
commodity who are seeking Geographical Indication. Thereafter, the act also requires
submission of details and particulars of the producers. Court states that providing such
particulars in accordance with the act would advance the object of excluding
unauthorized persons.
During the proceedings court found numerous shortcomings in the proceedings and
the application was not registered properly. The applicant failed to produce evidence
that would prove that the association represented interest of the producers and that
they were desirous to come together and register Geographical Indication. Court
further stated that the applicant also failed to submit particulars in accordance with
sec. 11(2) of the Act.
Obiter
Court made observations regarding application publication in the local language and
requirement of at least one person in consultative group from special field to which
the goods pertain.
Status:
The court removed the name of respondent from the register and sent the same back
to Geographical Indication Registrar.
Comments:
The implementation of the Order will have significant implications for the ongoing
applications, opposition processes, and rectification proceedings. The Order is highly
noteworthy due to the realistic approach employed by the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (IPAB) in resolving the dispute. Moreover, Court also acknowledged
the fact that GI Act is in its initial stages and the specific group intended to benefit
from the act might not have resources to safeguard their own interest. Therefore,
encouraged and instructed the IPAB to take a lenient approach .
Additionally, the case discusses processes that act as a pre-requisite to acquisition of
geographical indication.
 2. Embassy of Peru v. Mohan Dewan & ors.
Facts:
The case involves a dispute over geographical indication of PISCO mark. Embassy of
Peru, appellant, filed an application for registration of GI for PISCO in respect of
‘alcoholic beverages’ . The same was checked and applicant sent reply to formality
check report. After examination by consultative group the same was accepted for
registration. Thereafter, the application was published in Geographical indication
Journal. Notice of opposition was submitted by respondent no. 1 and 2, to which the
applicant sent counter statements denying all the allegations. Respondent no. 1 gave
no evidence in support of the allegation however, respondent no. 2 provided evidence.

Ratio:
Court stated that the whole point of sec. 11 of GI Act is to ensure that economic
benefits are homogenously distributed among producers in a specific geographical
area whose products are similar in equality & characteristic and, protecting business
interest of single producers is not object of the Act. Rule 32(6) necessitates that the
applicant must represent “interest of association”. In this case the affidavit was filed
by Embassy of Peru itself. Court held that the embassy is entitled to represent the
interest of Peruvian entities , both public and private involved in protection,
promotion and protection of PISCO as GI.
The Court dismissed the oppositions filed by respondent no.1 and 2. As far as
respondent no. 1 is concerned, the Court held that Peruvian PISCO cannot be
compared to Chilean liquor. This distinction arises from the international
acknowledgment that the term "PISCO" is intrinsically associated with Peru, and the
Chilean PISCO region has been established with the intention of appropriating the
Peruvian name "PISCO." Furthermore, documentary evidence demonstrated the use
of PISCO as a GI in Peru.
Consequently, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence on record
supporting the appellant's entitlement to the registration of PISCO as a geographical
indication.

Status
Oppositions filed by respondent 1 and 2 are dismissed. Court held that respondent no.
3 shall forthwith issue registration certificate. The appeal filed by Mr Mohan Dewan
is dismissed.

comments
This case highlighted the object and purpose of Geographical Indication Act i.e. to
ensure that economic benefits are equally distributed among producers of a specific
geographical area. It also better explains applicability of sections 11 and 11(2) of GI
Act.
 3. Banglar Rasogolla vs. Odisha Rasagola

Background:
The contentious issue at hand revolves around the geographical indication (GI) of "rasogolla"
or "rasagola," a delectable sweet treat that has stirred a heated debate between the Indian
states of West Bengal and Odisha. West Bengal asserts that rasagolla is a staple of Bengali
cuisine and was created in Kolkata in the late 1800s by the renowned Bengali confectioner
Nabin Chandra Das. . Whereas, Odisha claims that it is integral part of their religious and
cultural rituals and that they have been making it in Jagannath Temple in Puri for centuries.

The Escalation:
The controversy escalated when the Minister of Science and Technology set up committees to
uncover the real origin of sweet and concluded that “rasagulla” existed for 600 years in
Odisha.
West Bengal's government subsequently sought a GI tag for their version, applying under the
name "Banglar Rasogolla." Odisha, viewing this as an encroachment on their culinary
heritage, challenged the application on the grounds of originality. Odisha's government filed
an application before the Registry to cancel the registration of "Banglar Rasagolla." They
contended that the sweet's true origin was in the Jagannath Temple in Puri, Odisha, and thus,
Odisha should be the rightful claimant to the GI tag. However, Odisha's case was hampered
by a lack of compelling evidence, and the GI tag was eventually granted to "Banglar
Rasogolla."
In response to this decision, Odisha pursued its own GI tag under the name "Odishara
Rasagulla." They emphasized the differences in texture and taste of their version, furthering
the rift between the two states.
Dual GI Recognition:
Two years after West Bengal's "Rasogolla" was granted a GI, Odisha Small Industries Corp.
Ltd., a state government enterprise, was also awarded the same protection. Odisha
highlighted what they saw as distinct characteristics that set "Rasagola" apart from the
Bengali counterpart, such as its smooth, juicy, non-chewy texture, which they argue is
indigenous to Odisha. Their application introduced notable differentiating features, including
the use of sugar caramelization, which imparts a distinctive white colour to the sweet, and the
absence of external colours in the preparation of the confection. These features were
presented as essential aspects of "Odishara Rasagulla" that set it apart from other varieties,
cementing Odisha's claim to its own GI tag.

Result: Given the ongoing ambiguity surrounding the confection's origin, the GI tags now
officially recognize both versions presented by the states.

Comment
The case highlighted that The GI system can grant dual recognition to different regions,
acknowledging the distinctiveness of their products. The case also underscores the
importance of highlighting specific features that distinguish one regional variety from
another. Odisha's emphasis on characteristics like texture, color, and preparation methods
helped strengthen their case for obtaining a GI tag for "Odishara Rasagulla”. However,
interestingly it can be noted that , neither of the states has got a monopoly on the word
‘Rasogolla/ Rasagola’. So, it is free for anyone in the trade to continue selling the sweet as
Rasogolla/ Rasagola or any other synonym. What is prohibited is the usage of the word
‘Banglar Rasogolla’ and ‘Odisha Rasagola’ by anyone other than the ‘authorised user’ under
the law.
Note: The two separate hyperlinks above are for the entire documentation of the application
status and results of the two separate applications
 4. Shri Vinay Kumar Jain v. Agricultural and CIC

Facts:
Heritage foundation, an NGO and APEDA, respondent have submitted their respective
proposals before registrar of GI of goods for Basmati rice. The appellant (counsel of heritage)
has asked for access to records pertaining to the respondents application before registrat of
GI. CPIO refused to provide information on ground that information forms basis of GI
application and it cannot be made public until the same has been advertised in GI journal. The
appellant has argued that he has sought details in his individual capacity as a citizen and has
no intention to misuse the information.
Respondent refused to furnish unformation u/s 8(1)(d) and 11 of the Act on grounds that
disclosure would harm the competitive position, and it also contains information of third
parties and agreements between respondent and legal advisers. The disclosure is not in public
interest, as respondent is seeking registration of GI for basmati rice.

Ratio:
The court's reasoning for this decision is based on several factors. First, the court emphasized
that until the application is disposed of by the Registrar of GI, disclosure of such information
is not in the public interest, particularly as the respondent is pursuing the matter on behalf of
all stakeholders. Second, the court noted that disclosing this information could potentially
harm the competitive position of the parties involved, which is a legitimate concern. Lastly,
the court underlined the importance of adhering to accepted guidelines, which state that
relevant material should be published in the GI Journal, indicating that a premature release of
this information could go against established procedures.

Status:
Decision of appellate court to claim exemption from disclosure under 8(1)(d) and s. 11 is
justified and therefore upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Comment:
The court's decision to uphold the exemption from disclosure is reasonable and seems to be in
line with the broader goals of safeguarding the GI registration process. It acknowledges the
need to balance transparency with the protection of competitive interests and established
procedures. Therefore, the appeal in this case has been disposed of with this ruling.
TRADE SECRETS

1. Historical Analysis

The 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of corporations, and with them, the
development of corporate secrets. Companies such as Coca-Cola, with its closely guarded
formula, and IBM, with its proprietary technologies, exemplified the growing importance
of trade secrets in the business world. These secrets became the lifeblood of these
corporations, giving them a distinct market advantage.
As trade secrets became increasingly crucial, legal frameworks for their protection began
to emerge. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) was drafted in the United States in
1979, providing a model for state-level trade secret laws. Additionally, countries began to
introduce laws and regulations that recognized and protected trade secrets, offering legal
recourse in cases of theft or unauthorized disclosure.
The 21st century brought new challenges and opportunities for trade secrets. The digital
age, characterized by the rapid transfer of information, increased the risk of trade secret
theft. Companies had to adapt to cybersecurity measures to protect their sensitive data and
intellectual property.Today, trade secrets remain indispensable in various industries,
including technology, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing. The protection of proprietary
algorithms, product formulations, and research findings is paramount. Fierce competition
and global markets emphasize the importance of safeguarding these assets to maintain a
competitive edge.
The legal framework in India with regard to Trade Secrets developed majorly due to
judicial pronouncements. Cases such as Kashif Qureshi, Bombay Dyeing and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Mehar Karan Singh, American Express Bank v. Priya Puri
in detail offers a comprehensive framework for identifying trade secrets. It put forward a
criterion, such as the extent of knowledge within and outside the business, precautions
taken to maintain secrecy, and economic value, are essential for recognizing when a
particular piece of information qualifies as a trade secret, making it eligible for intellectual
property protection.
In addition to Judicial pronouncements, international agreements, such as the Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Trade
Organization, recognize the significance of trade secrets. These agreements establish a
foundation for consistent protection and enforcement of trade secret rights on a global
scale.

I. An overview of the law

 Section 27 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872 – Agreement in Restraint of Trade, Void
 Section 12(o) of Copyright Act – Powers and Procedure of Copyright Board
 Section 72 of Information Technology Act 2000 – Penalty for Breach of
Confidentiality and Privacy
 Section 405-409 Indian Penal Code
 TRADE SECRETS
1. Prof Dr. Claudio De Simone & Anr. vs Actial Farmaceutica

Facts: The case at hand in addition to other cases deals with trade secrets and know
how agreements. The plaintiffs claimed that they had developed a unique formula for
the De Simone Formulation which was protected under a Patent in the United States.
In addition to this, they had also entered into “know how transfer agreements” with
others for the said product and the same was being sold under brand names
VISBIOME and VIVOMIXX. Although the patent over the product had expired, the
plaintiffs contended that they had right to forbid others from using the trade secret or
“know how” that they had developed. They argued that subject matter of patent and
TS is different and therefore, ownership to TS can be claimed even after expiry of
patent. The Defendants on the other hand, argued that the TS or “know-how” was not
being used by them. They argued that they had by themselves created the product
without using TS or “know-how” of the plaintiff and it was different from De Simone
Formulation.
One of the important questions answered in the case was whether a third party
entering into an agreement of know-how and thereby claiming confidentiality can
grant property rights to an innovation that is not a patented product and does not have
a property right therein.

Ratio:
The right to Trade Secret Protection cannot be claimed where patent has expired and
the product is already in public domain. Therefore, claim for trade secret protection
fails in spite of the know-how agreement.

Status of the Litigation:

The suit was dismissed on grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action. The
claim of plaintiffs with regard to infringement of trade secrets was dismissed and
Court held that because the plaintiffs failed to show any individual civil right that
would be violated by the defendant, question of granting injunction wrt same does not
arise.

Comments:
This case deals with both Patent and Trade secrets at the same time and it shows how
rights conferred under one can affect rights with regard to the other. The case clarified
that a third party entering into an agreement of know-how and thereby claiming
confidentiality cannot grant property rights to an innovation that is not a patented
product and does not have a property right therein.
Moreover, the case highlights practical considerations involved in protection of
Know-how’s and Trade secrets. It emphasizes importance of taking important
measures such as entering into confidentiality agreements, agreement with employees
or other parties etc.