Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Law Treats All Equally, State Cannot Gain Undue Benefit from Delay Condonation  ||  SC: SARFAESI Act Was Not Applicable in Nagaland Before its 2021 Adoption, Dismisses Creditor’s Plea  ||  SC: Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits on Mortgaged Property, Including Ex Parte Proceedings  ||  Kerala HC: Civil Courts Cannot Grant Injunctions in NCLT Matters and Such Orders Can Be Set Aside  ||  Bombay High Court: Technical Breaks to Temporary Employees Cannot Deny Maternity Leave Benefits  ||  NCLAT: Appellate Jurisdiction Limited to Orders Deciding Parties’ Rights, Not Procedural Directions    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved