Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants  ||  Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically  ||  Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs  ||  Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders  ||  Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income  ||  SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law    

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