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.