Tirupati Laddu- GI grant questioned-Is it truly a GI Protection anyway?
In this entire process we hope that the Court may take this opportunity to clarify the position of law on whether a single entity can get a GI protection over a commodity as seems to be the case here.
A perusal of the GI journal No. 28 pg. 42 will show that the geographical area of production has been described as “Sri Vari Temple of Lord Venkateswara at Tirumala Hills, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh.” The application seems to indicate that TTD (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam) is the sole beneficiary involved in the GI application. In my view, and without any disrespect to the sanctity attached with the Tirupati Laddu, the very spirit of GI protection lies in it being a community right. The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 under section 11 read with rule 32 (6) of the The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 highlights that while applying for a GI the applicant has to show that it represents the interest of association of persons or producers thereby making it a community right.
We assume that there shall be a stay on the proceedings in the Madras High Court in light of the pending petition in the Supreme Court. Anyway it will be interesting to note if the Courts touch the GI issue here.
GI protection is granted for goods if their specific quality and/or characteristics are attributable to their geographical origin. As per section 8 of the GI Act the geographical origin may be from a region or locality in a territory. In the case of tirupati laddu, the quality and/or characteristics of the laddu can be attributed to its origin from the temple locality in Tirumala. TTD as a legally constituted organisation has the right to file for such registration under section 11 of the GI Act. In my opinion, the grant of GI for the laddu is well within legal provisions under the Act and is also in consonance with the objectives of GI protection. It will be interesting to see the views of the court with respect to interpretation of the terms ‘locality’ and ‘organisation’ eligible to apply.
GI registration for a production denotes that it originates from a particular place of production that has a certain characteristic attributable to that place.
Tirupati laddus certainly have a reputation but the characteristics of the laddus cannot be attributable to the place.
Assam tea for instance if grown outside Assam might not have the same unique character even if picked and processed in the same manner. It could be said that the place of culture and production might be responsible for the unique character.Tirupathi laddus if produced outside Tirupati with the knowledge of the recipe could still taste the same as that produced inside the walls of the temple. The place in itself is less responsible for the uniqueness of the laddus.
It is, however, the knowledge of the recipe which could be treated as a traditional knowledge or a trade secret kept within the community of the TTD in a similar sense as the recipe to coca cola is a trade secret kept within the community.
How a preparation of laddus prepared in different households would be distinct, Tirupati laddus prepared in tirupati are distinct. Tirupati laddus have a distinct taste attributed by the recipe in itself, with little emphasis to the influence of the geographical region. The laddus have always been referred as Tirupati laddus more as a notice to people to treat the laddus as a religious giving by the temple and less for distinctive character attached.
If any infringement of GI owned by TTD is caused by an action by a Non-Hindu, it is more likely that the battle for remedying it would be fought on the streets (and not in the court).
Government authorities would have lot of difficulties to revoke an IPR granted to religious institutions, as they are also reckoned as property under Article 300A (Vide decision of Supreme court in Civil Appeal NO. 5114 of 2005, May 16, 2008, M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd)
In our constitutional Scheme…, monopoly is not encouraged. Therefore, no private appropriation of religious symbol shall be allowed.
Nullifying the ‘property rights’ owned by religious establishments is a difficult task. The reference made in this regard by Honourable Supreme Court of India on 31st July, 2009 is very interesting. The bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Mukundakam Sharma asked the central government to ensure that there was no unauthorised construction of temples, churches, mosques and gurdwaras on public streets/public places.
“As far as the existing religious places are concerned, we can understand that demolition or removing them may create some law and order problem. But why don’t you consider preventing such constructions in future across the country?” – Mr. Justice Bhandari told the Solicitor-General, Mr. Subramaniam
This will open a flood gate of application for GI status for commodities. Every place has its own branding for food or sweets etc.. Can this give rise to a paratha galli in Delhi applying for parathas or dharwad peda made in Dharwad? The characteristics of the laddu cant be termed as unique to the locality as laddu was made in every house hold in earlier days for the festivities.
Can it be said that our old mithaiwallas can now apply for a GI status for his sweets like bikanerwale bhujia etc… Keeping in view of the diversity of the country and the sentiments it will be interesting how the courts interpret the terms as bought out by Dr. Kalyan.