Supreme Court: Foreign Judgment Unenforceable in India Without Fair Opportunity to Defend  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Decide Appeal Pending Before Statutory Authority Due to Delay  ||  Supreme Court: SDO Lacks Authority to Change Land Classification under UP Zamindari Abolition Act  ||  Supreme Court: Man Not Liable For Maintenance if DNA Test Proves He is Not the Child’s Father  ||  SC: Prison Must Not Dilute Rights of Disabled Inmates; Oversight Given to High-Powered Panel  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Would Have to Recuse if Children as Central Govt Counsel is Treated as Bias  ||  Delhi HC: Fresh Tenders Allowed Despite Existing Contracts; Anticipatory Grievances Not Entertained  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Cannot Respond Publicly; Criticism Must Be Responsible and Evidence-Based  ||  J&K&L High Court: IO Not Bound By FIR; Can Modify Offences in Final Chargesheet U/S 173 CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Brief Service Breaks Do Not Bar Ad Hoc Employees From Regularisation    

The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority and Ors. v. Daawat Foods Limited and ors. - (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) (05 Feb 2016)

APEDA’s basmati victory turns out hollow

MANU/IC/0001/2016

Intellectual Property Rights

Madras High Court directed the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority to not take action against Basmati rice farmers in Madhya Pradesh, after the IPAB rejected their objections to being excluded from the geographical indication. Filed by APEDA, the GI application purported use of the ‘Basmati’ rice brand only by rice growers in Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and J&K. The Respondents, farmers in several other States, had claimed inclusion of other areas, including Madhya Pradesh and areas of Pakistan, in the GI. The IPAB had instead accepted ADEPA’s arguments that the combination of quality and reputation were intertwined with the place of origin. Respondents’ claims of similar-quality rice grown for several decades and possible adverse effects on cultivators’ livelihoods did not convince the Board to expand the geographic scope of the GI.

Relevant : Section 10 Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985 Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd., Solan, Himachal Pradesh vs. The Scotch Whisky Association, Edinburgh, Scotland MANU/DE/0386/1979

Tags : IPR   GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS   BASMATI  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved