Bar&Bench News Network
After the Tirumala Laddu, Malihabadi Dussheri mangoes that are grown in the Lucknow region, is the latest to get geographical exclusivity rights. The Banarasi saree, Puneri Pagadi and Darjeeling tea are other products which have obtained a GI tag. Bijay Kumar, the Managing Director of National Horticulture Board (NHB), said, "this will secure exclusivity for the mango variety and enable the cultivators to sell their products under the Malihabadi brand that applied for a GI tag".
Brain League IP Services, a Bangalore based IP service company, filed the application on behalf of NHB. The team at Brian League was headed by Chief Knowledge Officer and Co-Founder, Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala, Vijay Kumar, a Senior Trademark Analyst and Vikram, a GI Team Associate.
In a separate matter, a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court against the grant of the GI tag to the Tirumala Laddu. R.S. Praveen Raj, a scientist, who sent a letter petitioning the Apex Court, claims that grant of such status has caused prejudice to Article 25 of the Constitution and violation of Section 9(d), Section 11 and Section 9(a) of the GI Act. Praveen speaking to Bar & Bench said, "I have filed a letter petition and have not engaged any lawyer to represent his views in the matter. I am confident that Supreme Court will take up my petition."
The argument drawn by Praveen is that since the Tirumala Laddu cannot be classified as an agricultural good, nor a natural good or a handicraft, leaving the option to schedule it only under industrial goods. But it is quite hard for devotees to believe that temple offerings are equivalent to manufactured goods or commercially significant commodities. Allowing GI registration of goods produced by private entities would defeat the spirit of GI protection, which is meant for protecting, preserving and promoting collective community rights as opposed to private monopoly rights.
A copy of his letter petition is available here.
|
- 1. "mohanraj has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court through his advocate Manikandan vathan chettiar challenging the GI to the laddoo and the Trade mark given for kannagi image. The draft makes lovely reading. What a lawyer Manikandan ? The link is Link ". Vijaya, Chennai
Related Stories
- 'Office of profit' amendment is constitutional, says Supreme Court
- Supreme Court adds 5 to strength
- Cipla scores victory in the Supreme Court
- Karanjawala represents Jaswant Singh in the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court curbs Mayawati's statue spree
- Delhi MMS Clip: Luthra & Luthra, Harish Salve, Sidharth Luthra represent Avnish Bajaj; obtain stay in Supreme Court
- Supreme Court says no beard rule is absurd
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
- SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge; Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










