M.P. No. 13/2014 in OA/5/2014/GI/CH. Case: The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Case NumberM.P. No. 13/2014 in OA/5/2014/GI/CH
Party NameThe Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Gladys Daniel, Aashish, Bhavana and Sukanya and For Respondents: Julien George
JudgesK.N. Basha, J. (Chairman) and Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Member (T)
IssueGeographical Indications of Goods (registration And Protection) Act, 1999 - Sections2(e), 2(g); Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 92
Judgement DateFebruary 25, 2015
CourtIntellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Order:

K.N. Basha, J. (Chairman)

  1. The Miscellaneous Petition No. 13/2014 in OA/5/2014/GI/CH is preferred by the petitioner herein seeking for the relief of impleading them as one of the respondents in this matter namely OA/5/2014/GI/CH.

  2. Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, the learned counsel for the impleading petitioner, Ms. Gladys Daniel, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Juliet George, learned counsel for the first respondent are present today.

  3. Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel would submit that the proposed party to be impleaded as one of the respondents herein is a welfare society registered on 07/12/2011 and the said society aims at organizing awareness programme related to agriculture development and education. The learned counsel would submit that the Geographical Indication Registry as per the order dated 31/12/2013 allowed the opposition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that the geographical area of protection is an important feature in granting Geographical Indication tag and the area has to be defined with clarity. Therefore, it is submitted that the products must include each and every cultivating areas where it grows. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the definition of "Geographical Indication" as per section 2(e) and contended that the Geographical Indication is in relation to goods originating or manufactured in the territory of country or a region or locality in that territory. The learned counsel would also place reliance on section 2(g) relating to "Indication" which includes any name, geographical area or figurative representation suggesting the geographical origin of goods to which it applies.

  4. Mr. P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner would also bring to the notice of this Bench relating to the objects and reasons of introduction of the Geographical Indication of goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and point out the objects and reasons contained in the introduction and as well as the statement. It is contended that in respect of the Geographical Indications, the dispute relates to inter parties. There is always the issue of public interest and as such the interest of producers by covering the entire area of production should be taken into consideration. The learned counsel would further contend that the farmers of Madhya Pradesh have been growing Basmati rice for several decades and the society came to know about the pending dispute...

To continue reading

Request your trial