GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND INDIA

 

INTRODUCTION

Several products that we come across in our everyday lives, like Darjeeling tea, Scotch Whisky, Swiss Gruyere cheese etc. are associated with some geographical region that acts as a source of origin for these goods; thereby authenticating the quality of the goods.

Geographical Indications (GI) is one of the six Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that enable comprehensive and effective protection to goods registered as GI goods.[1]

WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS’?

Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreements defines Geographical Indication as "indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin".1

In simpler words, a GI tag is a proof of where the product is born or produced. Such a tag acts as a signalling device that helps producers to differentiate their products from competing products in the market on the basis of place of origin and enables them to build reputation and goodwill around their products, as a result of which the goods fetch a premium price.

A comparative analysis between two types of Intellectual Property – trademarks and GIs, shall help understanding the basis of GIs. A trademark is a sign used by an enterprise in order to distinguish its goods and services from those of others and in turn gives its owner the right to exclude others from using the same. Similarly, a geographical indication acts as a source of origin and has certain characteristics that exist due to the geographical location. However, it is pertinent to note that a geographical indication is not an individual property for use only by the owner but instead a public property, and allows every producer in the specified region to use the said GI as long as the superior quality of the GI goods is attributable to the said region.

Apart from acting as a source identifier, a GI performs other functions as well. Some of the said functions are as follows:

i) Provides an indication of quality of the goods: A GI tag symbolises that the specified goods have special qualities as a result of their origin and the said qualities will not be present in other goods of the same category. A GI guarantees that the quality of the goods meets the expectations of the end consumer.

ii) Culture protecting function:A GI protects local culture by preserving traditional productions methods, habits of consumption and cultural identity. 

iv) Boosting the economy as a result of increase in exports: GIs promote economic prosperity by boosting exports as there is a higher demand for goods with GI tags since they let consumers know that the goods come from an area where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to their geographic origin.

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND INDIA

India has a diverse landscape, an extensive rural network and several indigenous goods in the form of handicrafts (Kani Shawl, Bastar Iron Craft) as well as local produce (Nashik Grapes, Mizo Chilly). As a result of being richly endowed with natural and agricultural products, effective protection for GIs was of extreme importance for India.

Thus, in view of the above and in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO, 'The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act, 1999) came into force to provide protection to the goods registered under the Act.

The object of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, is threefold,

1. By specific law governing the geographical indication of goods in the country which could adequately protect the interest of producers of such goods,

2. To exclude unauthorized persons from misusing geographical indications and to protect consumers from deception and,

3. To promote goods bearing Indian Geographical Indication in the export market.[2]

Further, as per Section 2(1)(e) of the G1 Act, 1999[3], a geographical indication is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of production, there is a clear link between the product and its original place of production.

A striking feature of Indian GIs is the broad variety of product categories which they cater to. The list ranges from agricultural and horticultural products to textiles, handicrafts, paintings and beverages, among other things.

As per Section 11(a) of the GI Act, 1999[4], an application for registration can be made in writing with the Registrar by an association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law, provided the same is in the interest of the producers of the concerned goods.

In order to strengthen GI protection, India submitted two proposals at WTO on Intellectual Property Rights issues covering geographical indications. Additionally, India along with Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan also submitted a joint proposal requesting the additional protection given to wines and spirits, to be extended to  other products  as  well. In the Indian context, this shall help export of agricultural and indigenous products like Basmati rice, Darjeeling tea, alphonso mangoes, which are in abundance in India.

As per the available data, India holds more than 85% share of the global ‘Basmati’ exports. Further, the European Union had a share of about 8% in India’s total basmati rice exports during April-May 2020. Thus, European Union is a major market for Indian products and produce specially basmati rice. Recently, the European Commission has also published India’s GI application for ‘Basmati’ rice in the European Union. 

Further, in another recent matter, the mark ‘KASHMIR’, applied for in respect of furniture, has been accepted by the Romanian IP Office (OSIM). Not only is KASHMIR a commonly known place, but also is closely associated and well-known with various handicrafts, including wooden furniture.

 Out of 370 registered GI names on the Indian GI Register, approximately 60% are for handicrafts and in view of the same, one of the issues pertinent for India is the protection of its handicrafts in the European Union, as the European Union has no laws to protect non-agricultural goods under its GI laws.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above, a GI conveys an assurance of quality and distinctiveness, which is an outcome of its place of origin. Further, in today’s globalized world, a GI guards the local culture and tradition from being exploited by outsiders using the GI in order to mislead the customers into believing that the said goods belong to a particular region and thus possess the distinctive quality.

As is mentioned in ‘Embedding Local Places in Global Spaces: Geographical Indications as a Territorial Development Strategy (2010)’, GI status is very unique in the sense that it provides ‘a means of ensuring that control over production and sales of a product stays within a local area, but at the same time [it] makes use of extra local [foreign] markets’.

Chadha & Chadha Intellectual Property Law Firm - Avanee Tewari

[1] WTO, 2004 

[2] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 

[3] Section 2 (e): "geographical indication", in relation to goods, means an indication which identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and in case where such goods are manufactured goods one of the activities of either the production or of processing or preparation of the goods concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality, as the case may be. 

[4] Section 11. Application for Registration - (1) Any association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law for the time being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication. 

"Too many cooks… 'Fit Kitchen' trade mark infringed" By Ben Mark*

UK: The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court issues judgment over use of 
‘Fit Kitchen’ trade mark

Introduction

On 29 July, Fit Kitchen Limited (FKL) won its case for trade mark infringement and passing off against Scratch Meals Limited (SML).

Both FKL and SML provide healthy pre-prepared meals: FKL via an online subscription site, which allows users to customise meal choices, based on their individual macros and dietary preferences and SML, through the manufacture and sale of products to supermarkets.

FKL's products are sold under a stylised logo containing the words 'Fit Kitchen'. The logo has been protected as a UK trade mark since August 2016. Between December 2016 - November 2019, SML also sold products under the sign 'Fit Kitchen'. FKL therefore issued proceedings for trade mark infringement and passing off. SML denied the allegations and counterclaimed, seeking revocation of FKL's trade mark on grounds of bad faith.

Bad faith?

The assertion of bad faith related to the fact that, for a brief time, FKL had been dissolved and removed from the register of companies, for failing to file accounts at Companies House. In 2017, FKL was restored but its trade mark application had been filed during the intervening period (i.e. before its restoration). SML therefore argued that the application had been filed in bad faith and amounted to "an act which fell short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced men in this area". The Court quickly dismissed this argument for two reasons: firstly, because once restored, a company is deemed to have existed at all times; and secondly, because the second claimant (who was the co-founder of FKL) was unaware that the company had been struck off and had continued to trade, under the FKL banner, throughout.

When considering FKL's infringement claim, the Court found that this failed under s10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA) (detriment and/or taking unfair advantage of the repute of a trade mark), on the basis that FKL's trade mark did not have the requisite reputation at the relevant time. FKL's claim under 10(2) TMA (likelihood of confusion) was however successful, in some part due to considerable evidence of actual confusion between the parties' products (65 instances, in total, were presented to the Court). Despite lacking the necessary reputation to succeed under s10(3) TMA, FKL's claim for passing off was also successful.

Key takeaways

FKL is a relatively small business with a modest turnover, As the considerably larger entity, both in terms of revenue and operations, SML may have hoped to negate a likelihood of confusion and that the Court would find that FKL had not built up enough reputation and goodwill in its 'Fit Kitchen' brand to succeed with its claims under s10(3) TMA and in passing off. The case however serves as an important reminder that the threshold for establishing goodwill in passing off claims is lower than the threshold for establishing reputation under s10(3) TMA. It also reiterates that whilst evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to succeed in a claim under s10(2) TMA, it goes a long way.

* Ben Mark is a Partner in IP & Technology at RPC in London. Ben can be contacted at ben.mark@rpc.co.uk.

Nathalie Codignola: "Evolution de la pratique Suisse concernant la protection des indications de provenance protégées"

 

« Contrairement aux marques, les indications de provenance n'attribuent pas les produits qui en portent la marque à une entreprise spécifique, mais à un pays, une région ou une localité. Les indications de provenance doivent donc être protégées contre les signes susceptibles de faire naître des idées fausses sur l'origine des produits ».

L’Institut Fédéral de la Propriété Intellectuelle (IPI) prévoit dans ses Directives en matière de marques (Directives) des cas dans les lesquels des indications de provenance peuvent être considérées comme suffisamment distinctives pour échapper au domaine public, à l’exclusion totale des indications géographiques faisant l’objet d’une protection par le droit international ou une législation spéciale. Pour de tels signes, la demande d’enregistrement de marque était systématiquement refusée sur la base de l’appartenance au domaine public et de l’atteinte au droit en vigueur.

A ce titre, la marque de jeux et jouets « Ravensburger » en classe 28 avait été refusée en Suisse notamment au motif qu’elle pouvait être confondue avec l’indication « Ravensburger Spiele », protégée par un traité bilatéral entre la Suisse et l’Allemagne, alors que l’Allemagne elle-même l’avait acceptée à l’enregistrement.

Il est bien connu que la Suisse se montre en général plus sévère que peut l’être la majorité des autres pays lors de l’examen d’indications de provenance, et que l’IPI fait rigoureusement application de critères d’examens qui lui sont propres. Néanmoins, quelques signes d’assouplissement semblent commencer à émerger de la pratique.

Tout d’abord, une évolution visible entre les deux dernières versions des Directives concerne les indications protégées par les ADPIC, auxquelles le caractère distinctif peut désormais être reconnu quand elles ne sont pas connues du public suisse, et que leur réservation n’entrave pas le besoin de disponibilité.

Depuis le 1er août 2020, un nouveau changement de pratique fait écho à cette évolution puisque dorénavant l’IPI accorde une certaine marge de tolérance en ce qui concerne les indications de provenance protégées : les signes composés de telles indications sont ainsi susceptibles de bénéficier d’une protection par le droit des marques si, de manière cumulative, ils remplissent les conditions suivantes :

1. le risque de tromperie est écarté par la limitation des produits et services à la provenance géographique,
2. le nom géographique concerné est enregistré comme marque verbale dans le pays d'origine,
3. le nom géographique n’est pas connu du public suisse.

La deuxième condition attire particulièrement notre attention en ce qu’elle témoigne de la volonté de l’IPI de ne pas se montrer plus sévère que l’Office des marques du pays d’origine, alors qu’il ne tient quasiment jamais compte des marques protégées à l’étranger - y compris dans leur pays d’origine - dans le cadre de son examen.

Il n’en demeure pas moins que cette opportunité reste très spécifique et par conséquent ne bénéficierait qu'à de rares cas dans lesquels, par exemple, une indication est protégée par un vieil Accord et qu'on remarque, d’une part, qu'il n'y a plus de protection géographique actuellement, et d’autre part, que le pays d'origine avait enregistré cette indication en faveur d'une entreprise bien particulière. Dans tous les autres cas, on comprend très bien que indications protégées ne puissent pas être enregistrées comme marques.

Source: Novagraaf 26.10.2020

Definición legal y supuestos controvertidos de la condición de consumidor - Análisis comparado de los Derechos español y argentino

 María Constanza Garzino - TESIS DOCTORAL (2020) 395 págs.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6739586002991546368

Resumen 

En esta tesis se estudia la diversidad de criterios existentes para identificar al consumidor, tanto en el derecho español como en el argentino. Se analizaron los antecedentes, características, fundamentos, principios, fuentes y presupuestos del derecho del consumidor, como también la definición legal de este sujeto, las opiniones doctrinales y jurisprudenciales. La identificación de tendencias, sus fortalezas y debilidades, permite tomar postura al respecto. Se examinaron las clasificaciones del consumidor, los supuestos controvertidos respecto a la categoría que resultan comunes en ambos países y los ámbitos específicos en los que puede existir un consumidor. La ejemplificación elegida nos muestra resultados que avalan la necesidad de proponer criterios fundados superadores de las divergencias existentes. Se concluye que, si bien en el derecho español existe mayor certeza que en el argentino respecto a los supuestos debatidos, sería conveniente que en ambos se adopte legislativamente una decisión concreta y a tal fin se asumieron y argumentaron posturas para cada caso. 

INDIA: "Bull with or without bull" by Dr Mohan Dewan [RK Dewan & Co]

 

Red Bull AG (Red Bull) filed(*) an application for removal of the word mark YOUR WINGS TO LIFE2 registered in the name of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited (Dr. Reddy’s) before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Dr. Reddy’s did not appear for the hearing and also failed to file a counter statement. 

Red Bull claimed that it adopted the mark GIVES YOU WINGS in conjunction with its Red Bull trademarks and used it in its promotional and advertising material as well. Red Bull claimed that it has multiple registrations for the mark GIVES YOU WINGS in Class 32. 

Red Bull also claimed that it has adopted the device of wings in its commercials. The concept of an animal/human acquiring wings after consumption of the Red Bull Energy Drink has become exclusively associated with Red Bull. It also claimed that it is the registered owner of the domain name www.givesyouwings.com. 

Red Bull stated that it recently found that the trademark YOUR WINGS TO LIFE is registered in the name of Dr. Reddy’s in respect of goods under Class 09. Red Bull claimed that neither Dr. Reddy’s nor its predecessors ever intended to use the YOUR WINGS TO LIFE mark in India even though an application for the same was filed in the year 2001. Red Bull claimed that Dr. Reddy’s has not used the impugned mark in India since adoption (almost 15 years) and more specifically for at least a duration of 5 years from the date of filing of the rectification. 

It claimed that the non-use of the trademark is clearly indicative of the lack of bona fide on the part of Dr. Reddy’s. It claimed that the said registration is an unwarranted hardship on Red Bull, who has an honest and bona fide user of the trademark GIVES YOU WING. 

It claimed that if the mark is allowed to subsist on the Trade Marks Register it would be depriving Red Bull, of its business. Hence it is a person aggrieved under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act. 

The IPAB held that the points raised by Red Bull have no force as both rival trademarks are neither deceptively similar nor identical. It further held that Dr. Reddy’s mark YOUR WINGS TO LIFE is not the main mark and is a sub-brand. IPAB also clarified that “the question of non-user will arise if the party who is seeking rectification is an aggrieved party and has interest”. It dismissed the petition and held that Red Bull is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act. IPAB also noted that as per the scheme of Trade Marks Act filing of counter-statement is not mandatory in order to decide the rectification

__________________________

(*) ORA/262/2015/TM/CHN 

Food shortages, stockpiling and panic buying ahead of Brexit as reported by the British media: a mixed methods content analysis

 Authors: Paul C. Coleman (Honorary Research Fellow), Fatima Dhaif (Academic Clinical Fellow) and Oyinlola Oyebode (Assistant Professor)

https://app.box.com/s/xda442zjoh1fe92zcwayempfzb2pvfbz

ABSTRACT

Background - Government documents warn that if the UK and EU have not negotiated a trade deal by 31 December 2020 the UK could experience increasedfood prices and possible food shortages.

The media have an important role in influencing recipients’ behaviour by promoting reassurance or anxiety on this issue. This study examines how food supply and demand, in the context of Brexit, has been portrayed by the British media.

Methods - A mixed methods content analysis of articles reporting on food supply and demand in the context of Brexit, in three daily newspapers, between 01 January 2015 and 31 January 2020.

Results – Five themes emerged: food shortages and panic buying (appearing in 96% of articles); food supply chain disruption (86%); economic impacts of Brexit (80%); preparation and stockpiling by the government and food sector (63%) and preparation and stockpiling by individuals (22%).

Conclusion - Government messaging reported by the media sought to reassure the public that here will be no food shortages under a no-deal Brexit. These reassurances contradicted warnings from the food sector and leaked government reports of reduced availability of food items.

 

These 20contradictory messages may have undermined trust in the government, potentially influencing stockpiling behaviour at the individual level.

[This paper is under peer-review].

"Is the nickname protected by law?" by Aleksandra Krześniak

By the judgment announced on October 23rd, 2020[1], the Polish Supreme Court decided on a 10-year-old dispute between Dariusz Michalczewski (a well-known Polish athlete, boxer; using the nickname “Tiger”) and the company FoodCare Sp. z o.o. ("FoodCare"), concerning the nickname "Tiger". The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint of the plaintiff (D. Michalczewski) and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Kraków. In 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for payment of over PLN 21 million for infringement of personal rights.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court, a nickname is not a personal right and is not protected by law like a pseudonym; due to the fact that it does not replace the last and first name, but appears alongside them. As a consequence, FoodCare did not infringe the personal rights of D. Michalczewski by using the name "Tiger" as the name of the energy drinks produced.

Subject of dispute and trademarks

Dariusz Michalczewski claimed compensation from FoodCare for the infringement of his personal rights in the form of the nickname "Tiger" as well as violation of the trademarks registered on his behalf. According to the plaintiff, FoodCare (defendant) sold energy drinks under the name "Tiger" after the cooperation between the parties had ended (termination of the license agreement), i.e. from October 2010 until the end of December 2011, without paying him for the promotion related to the use of the nickname "Tiger". As a result of Michalczewski's statements - who claimed to be entitled to the name of energy drinks "Tiger" - at the end of 2011 FoodCare changed the name of its products from "Tiger" to "Black" and ceased selling goods under the name "Tiger".

As a side note, it is worth noting that both parties are entitled to registered national trademarks: Dariusz Michalczewski owns rights to two word and figurative marks TIGER (R.145637 and R.191973), while FoodCare a word mark BLACK TIGER (R.179222). Interestingly, there are also several word marks TIGER submitted for registration by D. Michalczewski; however, for several years now the characters have the status "Application published" - perhaps the Polish Patent Office is waiting for a civil case to be resolved.

The claim related to the infringement of personal rights and registered trademarks was determined by D. Michalczewski at over PLN 21 million. The boxer has been advertising “Tiger” energy drinks since 2003.

Judgments of the first and second instance courts

The Circuit Court in Cracow by its judgment of October 12th, 2016[2] acknowledged Michalczewski's claim to the amount of PLN 2.4 million; and dismissed it as to the remainder part. In the opinion of the Court, the action of FoodCare was contrary to good practice, especially the principle of "pacta sunt servanda". Additionally, the Court also emphasized that the behavior of the defendant company, which used the image of a boxer in a promotional campaign and then - after termination of the licensing agreement - produces the same drink and claims that name of the product has nothing to do with the plaintiff, cannot be accepted.

Only FoodCare appealed against that judgment. The court of second instance, i.e. the Court of Appeal in Cracow, by a judgment of November 27th, 2017[3] changed the appealed judgment of the Circuit Court in such a way that it dismissed Michalczewski's claim in its entirety. In the opinion of the Court, the contract (here: licensing agreement) does not create a personal right; the word “Tiger” does not constitute a value of social significance and therefore, this designation can be used commonly. The plaintiff filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Court against the judgment of the second instance court.

Importantly, both the circuit court and the court of appeal took the position that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any violation of trademark rights (the infringement has not been proven). In connection with the above, the Supreme Court, at the stage of cassation proceedings, was only to decide whether by advertising and marketing the energy drink under the name "Tiger" (specifically: "Tiger Energy Drink") there have been violations of D. Michalczewski's personal rights to his nickname "Tiger".

Supreme Court: the nickname is not protected by law

The Supreme Court dismissed Michalczewski's cassation complaint and ruled that the nickname is not protected as a pseudonym, which replaces the first and last name. A nickname appears next to the first and last name (not instead of them), therefore it is not a personal right. In the light of the above, there is no inseparable connection between the nickname and the person who uses it. By dismissing the cassation complaint, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which rejected Michalczewski's claim in its entirety.

In the justification of the judgment, the Court emphasized that there is a difference between a nickname and a pseudonym; they cannot be considered equivalent to each other. In the opinion of the Court, the pseudonym is primarily intended to replace the real name and surname of a specific person, ensuring his anonymity. A nickname in turn defines a person with a known identity. This was also the case with the term “Tiger”, which always appeared in the context of the plaintiff's name, not instead of it.

In practice, the ruling of the Supreme Court means that Dariusz Michalczewski is not exclusively entitled to use (including commercial use) in the public space of the name "Tiger". The word "Tiger" is therefore not solely assigned to D.Michalczewski. Thus, the Court shared FoodCare's argument that the plaintiff has never acquired the rights to the name "Tiger" as a designation to individualize the FoodCare product in the form of an energy drink.

In conclusion, it is worth mentioning that one of the arguments indicated by Michalczewski was the fact that he is the only athlete who "transformed" a sports nickname into a business success. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the Court, the above is not sufficient to determine that a personal right protected by law could have been "created" on this basis. The ruling issued in the present case may have a real impact on other proceedings concerning the violation of personal rights.

Source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/4c2564cf-da05-4776-86ae-1353fa8c3dca.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVYILUYJ754JTDY6T&Expires=1606166618&Signature=RDULSoejj9P7hQRA%2F4YvaBehorE%3D

‘Cannubis’: Merely playing around with the spelling of a word, cannot render it to be distinctive!

 

What would you, as a reader, relate the word ‘Cannubis’ to? Did you think of ‘Cannabis’ too?!

An individual filed a trademark application for the wordmark ‘Cannubis’ bearing Application No. 018048487 at the EUIPO in the following classes for the respective goods:

Class 3 — Toiletries;

Class 5 — Dietary supplements;

Class 30 — Coffee, teas and cocoa and substitutes therefor;

Class 32 — Non-alcoholic beverages.

The Application was ‘Objected’ to by the Examiner stating that the mark applied for was an obvious misspelling of the word ‘Cannabis’ and the targeted consumers will be misled into believing that the products bearing the mark contain some element of ‘Cannabis’. The Examiner concluded that since the mark applied for is directly associated to the natural substance ‘Cannabis’, it is descriptive in nature and is thus not registrable under Article 7(1)(b) of the European Union Trademark Regulation (EUTMR) which refers to the ‘Absolute grounds of Refusal’. (Article 7(1)(b): trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character.)

The Applicant filed an appeal against the Examiner’s decision with the following arguments:

1. that the phonetic similarities drawn by the Examiner were not tenable;
2. that the word ‘Cannubis’ has no meaning of its own and is thus inherently distinctive;
3. that ‘Cannubis’ is a word which is a combination of the words ‘CANNABIS’ and ‘Anubis’ (the old Egyptian term for skull forming and mummification); and
4. The Applicant also cited prior marks in the Register which could have been considered to be similar to ‘Cannabis’ but were not: Cannabin, Cannabia, Cannabi.

The Appeal Board however, was not convinced with the arguments put forth by the Applicant. It particularly stated that the argument relating to the mark applied for being a combination of the words ‘Cannabis’ and ‘Anubis’ is a far-fetched reference and the public at large in the present times will not establish such a connection. The Appeal was thus refused. 

*Reference from https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#basic/*///number/R2651%2F2019-1.  

"Progression of plant -based nourishment: – A replacement of meat" by Samriti Juneja*

 

https://app.box.com/s/jgjq08a9tzjdueicnc21l3mr2x9w4d5m

* Institute of home economics, Delhi university, New Delhi-110016 - juneja.samriti@gmail.com

India vs. Pakistan: Basmati Battle at the European Union

India and Pakistan are at loggerheads again, however, for a change, this time the battleground is the European Union (EU). Pakistan is planning to oppose India’s Geographical Indication (GI) claim over Basmati rice. As per EU’s official report, India submitted the GI tag registration application in September 2020, stating, “Basmati is grown in various parts of India as a special long grain aromatic rice. It is raised and produced in a particular geographical region of the Indian sub-continent, below the foothills of the Himalayas. The area is a part in northern India, below the foothills of the Himalayas forming a part of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP).” Since India has already applied for the GI tag of Basmati rice , it will have the sole ownership if Pakistan’s opposition fails.

Source- https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/long-grain-indian-basmati-rice-21292560073.html

We do not claim any copyright in the image used. It has been used for academic and representational purposes only

Reports suggest that Pakistan decided to oppose India’s claim at the European Union during a meeting which was attended by Secretary Commerce, Chairman, Intellectual Property Organisation (IPO-Pakistan), representatives of the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan (REAP), along with the legal fraternity, and chaired by the adviser to the Prime Minister on Commerce, Razak Dawood.  The Ministry issued a statement soon after the meeting stating, “Pakistan will vehemently oppose the claim within the EU and restrain India from obtaining exclusive Geographical Indication (GI) tag of Basmati rice.”

The data shared by the Agricultural and Processed Food Export Development Authority suggests that India produces about 7.5 million tonnes of Basmati rice. In FY 2019-20 India exported around 60% or 4.45 million tonnes of Basmati rice, valuing US $ 4.33 billion. Whereas, according to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan exported Basmati rice worth US $ 790.8 million. Basmati rice in Pakistan is grown mainly in its Punjab province.

The Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament dated 21st November, 2012, on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs provides an option to countries for filing an opposition to a GI claim within a period of 3 months from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Pakistan enacted its GI (Registration and Protection) Act in March 2020, but has not implemented it yet. The GI Act, once implemented, will provide Pakistan the right to oppose India’s application for GI Tag registration. However, it has already been more than 15 days post the notification of India's claim. Now Pakistan has less than 10 weeks for opposing India’s claim and filing a counter application with the EU, convince it that Pakistan has maintained the exclusivity of its regions cultivating Basmati. The same would involve internal talks and negotiations. It remains to be seen if Pakistan keeps up with the crushing timeline.

Ary Rosenbaum: "Marketing is sometimes, just marketing"

 

The Miller Lite Ads did not inspire to drink beer, but the advertisements were comedy gems from Rodney Dangerfield, Billy Martin, John Madden, Red Auerbach, and a whole host of other sports celebrities (and writer Mickey Spillane for some reason). Less filling, tastes great were the rival chants and Lite Beer from Miller was the first and most successful light beer (until surpassed by Bud Light and Coors Light).

If you drink the beer and you have a sense of taste, you know it’s not very good. It was more marketing that a decent beer recipe. While you may be enticed by the great marketing of a plan provider, you need to dig deeper under the surface to make sure they can do the job. When it comes to marketing, there is nothing wrong to buy on “sizzle”, as long as there is some steak.

CHINA: State administration for market regulation issued the draft of trade secrets protection provisions

The State Administration for Market Regulation has recently issued a draft version of Trade Secrets Protection provisions. The SAMR is waiting for public feedback. The draft shines a light on trade secrets infringement, also taking into consideration the situation when the customer list is protected, as a trade secret.

The first law document regulated trade secrets infringement was the Prohibition of Trade Secret Infringement (1998). The structure was quite simple: it didn’t have any chapters, subdivisions or parts, it only comprised 12 articles. After amending law articles about the protection of trade secrets in Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2019), the Chinese government decided to unify the content of law articles of these documents. The draft of Trade Secrets Protection provisions is proposed to have six chapters structured with 39 law articles. If the Chinese government approves this draft, six chapters will regulate the following issues: chapter 1 - general provisions; chapter 2 - Trade secrets definitions; chapter 3 - Infringement on trade secrets; chapter 4 - Investigation and punishment measures applied to infringers on trade secrets; chapter 5 - Liabilities and chapter 6 - Miscellaneous.

The main amendments of Trade Secrets Protection provisions are:

1) the draft explains article 9 of the amended version of Anti-Unfair Competition Law regarding trade secrets constituent elements (unknown to the public, their business value and confidentiality measures);

2) the draft reviews trade secret infringement and recommends including additional information about the applicable law to trade secrets acts;

3) the document includes circumstances in which the third parties become involved in the infringement act of trade secrets;

4) elaboration of principles in which a customer list can be considered, as a trade secret;

5) the liabilities of market regulators above county level are to be written in the document;

6) if the real right owner reveals a trade secret infringement act, they will have to prove it, providing sufficient and persuasive evidence. Otherwise, it won’t be possible to claim an infringement trade secrets act. Besides, the real right holder is encouraged to consult experts before accusing a party of an infringement act. These actions will increase the right holder potential to win a trial.

7) the notion of truth of the evidence and assessment principles are in the draft document.

The miscellaneous section of the draft suggests clarifying two main points. The first concerns the exceptions to the protection of trade secrets. In other words, if trade secrets belonging to the category of state secrets or they violate rules, regulation or cause any harm to the national/social interests, they are out of the protection domain of the draft. The second considers provisions of foreign cases, taking into account the hierarchical division of jurisdictions.

[Source:Schmitt & Orlov - https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/cc581cd4-2380-4498-90ee-f6dc2cf738e7.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVYILUYJ754JTDY6T&Expires=1601908150&Signature=%2BTl9j%2F2IaW1VDXK7oI%2FWDpmkP90%3D]