Raj HC: Convicted Minor Gang Rapist Not Fully Barred From Open-Air Camps; Rules Allow Exceptions  ||  Calcutta High Court: Serving a Show-Cause Notice Via Email is Valid under PMLA Regulations  ||  Del HC: Candidate’s Independent Medical Opinions Don’t Justify Fresh Medical Exam in SSC Recruitment  ||  Calcutta HC: Magistrate Must Assess Grounds, Cannot Order Police Inquiry under Section 175(3) BNSS  ||  SC Grants Law Officer Exam Relief, Saying Students Can’t be Blamed When Judges Differ in Views  ||  SC: Fraudulent Diversion of Company Funds Cannot be Validated by Later Shareholder Ratification  ||  SC: Doctor’s View on a Victim’s Consciousness Prevails over Police Assessment in Dying Declarations  ||  SC: Examining Contradictions and Witness Credibility Exceeds the Scope of Section 319 CrPC  ||  Supreme Court Struck Down Section 60(4), Removing Limits on Maternity Benefits For Adoptive Mothers  ||  Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12    

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