The very mention of Darjeeling tea immediately gives rise to an image of a very high-quality and well- reputed tea which is famous for its distinctive taste and aroma and is grown in the tea gardens of East India. This is an example of a geographical indication (hereinafter GI). GI is a name or sign used for goods that have a specific geographic origin and possess qualities or reputation that are attributable to their origin.

The concept of GI’s has been precisely explained by Warwick University principal investigator Dwijen Rangnekar: “As evident from products like champagne, Scotch whiskey and tequila, GIs focus on the triple relationship between a product, its special qualities and the geographical territory of origin.” The rationale behind protection of GIs is two-fold: (1) Protection of consumer interests by preventing them from getting deceived by false imitations which are sold in the name of a high-quality, well-reputed good; (2) Protection of producer’s interests so as to ensure that their reputation is not damaged due to counterfeit versions sold in the market in the name of their product. It also adds value to their product as many products have been seen to sell at a premium upon their registration as a GI.

GIs: International and Indian Context

Internationally, GIs were first covered as elements of Intellectual Property Rights under Articles 1 (2) and 10 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. More recently, it is under the WTO that all member nations are required to comply with obligations regarding protection of GIs which are covered under Articles 22 to 24 of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter TRIPS) Agreement.

As a part of its TRIPS obligations, the Indian Parliament passed the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act (hereinafter the GI Act) in December, 1999 so as to afford legal protection to GIs in India. Under the GI Act, which along with the GI Rules came into force on 15 September 2003, the Central Government has established the Geographical Indications Registry at Chennai for registration of GIs. Under the Act, the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks  is the ‘Registrar of GIs’ and he is responsible for supervision of the Geographical Indications Registry. Though the Act has not made registration of GIs mandatory, registration is usually recommended. This is because Section 20 (1) of the GI Act states that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered GI. Thus, the benefit of registration of a GI is that it provides a means to obtain relief in case of infringement. In India, a GI may initially be registered for a period of ten years, and it can be renewed from time to time for further periods of ten years. Registration of GI also results in imposition of certain restrictions on the registered GI. For instance, it cannot be made a subject of assignment, transmission, licensing, pledge, mortgage or any such other agreement.

The Tirupati Laddu Controversy

Recently, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (hereinafter TTD), the temple trust which manages the world’s richest temple, had submitted an application before the Geographical Indication Registry seeking the GI tag for the famous temple offering, the ‘Tirupati laddu’. They claimed that the growing demand for ‘Tirupati laddus’ had resulted in hawkers preparing and selling laddus at their own premises under the name of ‘Tirupati laddus’. This practice has been thriving for many years and the raids conducted by the Security and Vigilance wing of the TTD so as to root out the business have proved to be futile. The TDD justified its application for a GI status on the ground that once the GI tag is granted to the ‘Tirupati laddu’, it’ll help curb the problem as violators will be subjected to penalty and punishment under the GI laws. Finally, their demands were accepted and the ‘Tirupati laddu’ was awarded a GI status in September 2009.

However, granting of GI status to the ‘laddu’ has become a contentious issue and has been subjected to severe criticism. Many have questioned the necessity of appropriating such religious symbols and have failed to see the purpose behind TDD’s move. They argue that if the idea was merely to prevent the public from getting hoodwinked by those selling counterfeit laddus, the same could have been simply achieved by publicly declaring that the original laddus are available only within the temple precincts and not elsewhere. Applying for grant of GI status seems to be totally unwarranted.

Further, GIs are meant to benefit a community of local producers and act as an appellation or indicator of the geographical original of the product. This would mean that everyone from Tirupati should have the right to use GI on “Tirupati Laddu”, as long as their laddu geographically originates in Tirupati and has the same delicacy and features attributable to the laddu that is prepared by the temple trust. This is because GIs in contradistinction to trademarks and patents is a community right. One person or a trust can’t have a monopoly and claim ownership. Impliedly, there is a prohibition on applications by a single entity. Therefore, one of the most pertinent grounds of opposition to granting the status of GI to laddus is that the TDD is a single entity and does not fairly protect or represent the interests of all producers of laddus in Tirupati.

Further, a GI tag primarily aims at promoting the economic prosperity of producers of goods in a geographical area. In contradiction to this, the GI registration of ‘Tirupati Laddus’ has resulted in the monopolistic rights to the name of ‘Tirupati laddu’ to be granted to one of the world’s richest religious institutions. Also, as important as it is to preserve product quality, granting a single entity, the rights to a name which has already been used by several independent producers over a long period of time would not be an appropriate response. In fact, if a product name has become generic and is widely used outside the region of origin, the GI application can be challenged and invalidated.

A geographical indication gives exclusive right to a region to use a name for a product with certain characteristics that corresponds to its specific location. Based on this, it is contended that the ‘Tirupati laddu’ is not worthy of a GI status because like other laddus, the ‘Tirupati laddu’ too is made from ordinary ingredients such as flour, sugar, butter, cardamom and dry fruits. Therefore, it does not as such possess any unique characteristic that sets it apart from regular laddus, neither does it have any distinctive feature specifically pertaining to the land of Tirupati or the TDD that cannot be found in the laddus prepared at other places.

Interestingly, section 9(d) of the Act prohibits registration of a geographical indication if the same was to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class of Indian citizens. This gives rise to the paradox of rejecting an application from a religious body on the grounds that it prejudices religious sentiments.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, the granting of GI status to the famous ‘Tirupati Laddu’ has faced vehement opposition from the public. Many also doubt the economic motives behind this move of the TDD. Henceforth, they have been questioning the rationale behind granting of GI status to the ‘Tirupati laddus’. This had led the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks to review TTD’s application. Therefore, even though the application was first made in March 2008 and typically, it takes three to six months for the process of obtaining the GI status, in the case of the ‘Tirupati laddu’, the GI tag was not granted until September 2009.

In a discussion on GIs in Parliament, Minister of State for Commerce, Jairam Ramesh had admitted before the Rajya Sabha that a lack of understanding of GIs had led to GI applications being filed for articles like the ‘Tirupati laddus’ and Krishna-Godavari gas among others. Clearly, the GI Registry did not pay any heed to his observation and went ahead and attached the GI tag to the ‘Tirupati Laddu’. While many were suggesting that the GI Registry review suo motu its decision to grant GI status to ‘Tirupati laddu’, a scientist from Kerela finally challenged the granting of GI status to the Tirupati Laddu through a writ petition in the Supreme Court in October 2009. Besides arguments in which he alleges violation of the GI Act itself, he also expresses concern about “the prejudice caused to Article 25 of the Constitution” and the “potential devastation to the country.”