Overview of Geographical Indication Registration in India

The Geographical Indication Act, 1999 in India has been instrumental in the extension of GI status to many goods so far. The Central Government has established the Geographical Indications Registry with all India jurisdictions, at Chennai, where right-holders can register their geographical indications. Unlike TRIPS, the Act does not restrict its special protection to wines and spirits alone. The Central Government has the discretion to decide which products should be accorded higher levels of protection.  This approach has deliberately been taken by the drafters of the Act with the aim of providing stringent protection as guaranteed under the TRIPS Agreement to geographical indications of Indian origin. However, other WTO members are not obligated to ensure Article 23-type protection to all Indian geographical indications, thereby leaving room for their misappropriation in the international arena.

India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, has been in effect since September 2003. To date, there are 236 geographical indications registered in India. The Geographical Indication Registry conducts regular awareness-creation workshops in various parts of India to educate stakeholders about the availability of such protection for the various geographical indications in relevant regions.

As a developing country, India is in the nascent stages of geographical indication protection, and because of this the government plays a more active role in the protection process. With the provisions of the GI Act permitting government bodies to become applicants, it is easier for the Indian government to support producers of the indications by protecting the indications and helping producers gain market access for their goods.

Since the first Indian geographical indication registration in 2004, 236 geographical indications have been registered with the GI Registry of India. Of these, more than half (64%) are handicrafts, more than one fourth (26%) are agricultural products, and the remaining are food and manufacturing products.

The trend of GI registration has been mostly upward with the maximum number of products registered in the year 2008 – 2009. While handicrafts have been the most registered GIs consistently, agricultural and manufactured products are increasingly being protected under the Act over the past few years. Food products, a more recent addition in the registered GI basket of India, was first granted protection in 2008 – 2009 when Dharwad Pedha from Karnataka was granted the status of a registered GI product. The recent increase in manufactured products being registered as a geographical indication can be partially attributed to more foreign products being registered at the Indian GI Registry.

Since 2009, six foreign products have been registered as geographical indications within the territory of India. These are Champagne and Cognac from France, Scotch Whiskey from the United Kingdom, Napa Valley wines from the United States of America, Douro wine from Portugal, Peruvian Pisco from Peru and Prosciutto di Parma from Italy.

As of date, the Southern states of India have bagged the maximum number of registered Geographical Indications. The state of Karnataka has been the forerunner in registration of GIs followed by the states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The spread of geographical indications’ recognition is concentrated in the southern states. Products from other states are getting registered now. At the same time many states, which have several traditional varieties of agricultural products or handicrafts, are not forthcoming in applying for GIs. There are only three geographical indications from all of north east India and none from Uttarakhand. The states of Punjab and Haryana have no geographical indication either except for a joint geographical indication on Phulkari embroidery along with Rajasthan. Phulkari is the only geographical indication in India which covers more than one state.

- Monidipa Sengupta

TPP vs. RCEP

The TPP (Trans- Pacific Partnership) is a multinational trade agreement between 12 countries namely, USA, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan.

Each nation wanted to end the negotiation in 2012, but there were a few issues such as agriculture, Intellectual Property and investments which caused the negotiations to continue.

South Korea did not participate in the 2006 agreement, but showed interest in entering the TPP agreement. The other countries interested in the agreement are Taiwan, the Philippines and Colombia as of 2010; Thailand and Laos as of 2012; Indonesia, Cambodia, Bangladesh and India as of 2013.

The RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is another FTA negotiation that has developed among 16 countries; the 10 members of ASEAN (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) and the six countries with which ASEAN has existing Free Trade Agreements (FTA) – Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. In relation to RCEP these six non-ASEAN countries are known as the ASEAN Free Trade Partners. In between these countries seven have already signed the TPP Agreement and the others are interested in the TPP membership. So we can presume that these two agreement member countries will come under one umbrella to create new vast free trade zone.

-Atanu Mistry

The Biggest Problem in Piracy

Rocky Ouprasith, 23, the founder of the website RockDizMusic.com, a Cyberlocker site that made it easy to download songs, was sentenced to three years in prison in November, 2015. He was also ordered to pay USD 99,139.67.
Ourpasith started the site in 2011, hosting user content on servers in France and Canada and ran a similar website in Russia and the Netherlands. The site was seized by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, in 2014.
Ouprasith admitted to obtaining copies of copyrighted songs and albums from on-line sources and encouraged others, whom he called 'affiliates', to upload music to the website. He agreed to pay these 'affiliates' based on the number of file downloads. In his plea agreement, Ouprasith admitted the market value pf the illegally obtained material to be approximated more than USD 3.5 million.
Cyberloacker is an on-line service that allows users to store and share large files. Cyberlocker websites have several uses. they're useful for sharing copyrighted maerial. while the major services don't provide search engnes themselves, there are a number of third party search-engines that do. a search for a popular movie or television show on one of these specialised search engines, like Filestube.com , shows there is plenty of pirated material that can be easily accessed through these cyberlocker websites.
after all this commotion, the cyberlocker companies made it clear that they weren't going to sit around. Just a day after the MarkMonitorreport came out citing RapidShare as a 'top digital piracy service', RapidShare fired out an indignant press release saying it might sue for defamation. A day later, Mega Upload (another cyberlocker service holder) pushed back in a similar manner.

- Atanu Mistry

Batmobile gets Copyright Protection

Since 1939, Batman has been featured in numerous publications by DC Comics, as well as in feature films and television shows. Since 1941, many of the comic books, films, and other works featuring Batman also depict his vehicle, the Batmobile. As a US Appeals Court observed, it is an indispensable crime fighting vehicle driven by the hero Batman and has sufficient character traits to qualify for a copyright protection.

The infringement case was between Mark Towle, owner of Gotham Garage, who makes replicas of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1960s live action television show and its 1989 appearance in the “Batman” movie.  The replicas sell for approximately 90,000 US dollars each. DC Comics sued Mark Towle in 2011, claiming rights in those versions of the Batmobile, even though the Batman comics published by DC did not feature Batmobile designs that looked like the Batmobile in the movies and/or on the TV show.

To determine whether characters in comic books, television shows or movies are entitled to such protection, courts conduct a three-part test. First, the character must have “physical as well as conceptual qualities.” It also has to be “sufficiently delineated” so people recognize it as the same character across time. And third, the character has to be “especially distinctive.” The Batmobile passed the test and the court ruled that a character could be protectable based on distinctive and consistent character traits “even if the character does not maintain the same physical appearance in every context.”

“To the Batmobile!”

- Nayanika Singhal

U.S. Court Rules Yoga Cannot Be Owned

Bikram Choudhary, the founder of “Bikram Yoga” – a series of 26 yoga postures to be performed in an environment heated at the temperature of 40° Celsius – sought to copyright the posture sequence in his name and claimed that they could not be taught by anyone whom he did not prescribe. The practice has made a name for Mr. Bikram and has helped him earn 4.9 Million a year and includes speaking enagagements, book and CD sales.

He developed the postures as a student under Bishnu Ghosh in the 1970s. By early 2000s he had franchised his practice to 600 studios and in 2002 his lawyers began sending cease and desist notices to anyone who taught his style of yoga without his authorization.

In 2011, Bikram’s Yoga College of India sued California-based Evolation Yoga for copyright infringement and related claims. The studio offered yoga classes that were similar to the posture sequence popularized by Mr. Bikram.
After a heated battle, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in the favour of the defendants and held that

Mr. Bikram does not in fact have copyright protection for the 26 yoga posture sequence he developed. The court stated that copyright protects only the expression of this idea — the words and pictures used to describe the sequence —and not the idea of the sequence itself.

This ruling implies that the posture sequence claimed by Mr. Bikram does not have copyright protection and can be taught by other studios without the fear of being sued over it. The court has made it perfectly clear that Yoga is not a copyrightable subject and it cannot be owned by a particular person. Yoga belongs to the public.

- Nayanika Singhal

WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC LOSES THE ‘BIRTHDAY SONG’

For a simple composition, the ‘Happy Birthday’ song has had a complex history riddled with copyright lawsuits and profit-earning schemes. A Federal Judge in a surprise decision on 22^nd September, 2015 ruled that Warner/Chappell Music never had the right to charge for the use of the song. Warner had been enforcing a copyright since 1988, when it bought Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F. Summy Co., which claimed the original disputed copyright.

The lawsuit against Warner claimed that the company had earned millions of dollars in unlawful licensing schemes. The Judge ruled that the copyright filed by Clayton F. Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the right to various piano arrangements and not the actual lyrics of the song.

Until now, Warner has asked for royalties from anyone who wanted to sing or play the song, with the lyrics, as part of a profit-making enterprise. Royalties were most often collected from stage productions, television shows, movies or greeting cards. But even those who wanted to sing the song publicly as part of a business technically had to pay to use the song. The lawsuit stated that the music company earned approximately two million a year in licensing fees.

Both the parties agreed that the melody of the song, first written as ‘Good Morning to you All’ by two sisters Mildred and Patty Hill, had entered the public domain years ago but Warner still claimed that it owned the rights to the song as per the 1935 copyright claim.

The Judge’s stunning ruling implies that the song is now a public work and everyone is free to use it without the fear of having to pay for it.

Nayanika Singhal 

Costco to Pay

The luxury retailer Tiffany and Co. has triumphed in its suit against the warehouse club Costco Corp. filed on February 15, 2013. Tiffany contended that Costco was engaging in the sale of counterfeit Tiffany diamond engagement rings. In the complaint Tiffany accused Costco of counterfeiting, unfair competition, trade mark infringement, injury to business reputation, false and deceptive trade practices and false advertising. Tiffany contended that Costco had willfully violated the laws and was liable for trade mark infringement and trade mark counterfeiting in its use of ‘Tiffany’ on signs in the jewelry cases at its stores.

The TIFFANY mark has been used continuously for 175 years and enjoys worldwide fame and recognition. Tiffany contended that when Costco used their mark to refer to goods which had no relation to Tiffany and Co. whatsoever, it infringed Tiffany’s trademark and damaged both their customers and their brand. However, Costco defended itself aggressively and contended that the Tiffany ring setting is an ‘industry – standard’ term comprising of multiple prongs extending upwards to hold a single diamond. It denied infringement and asked the Court to prohibit the Plaintiffs (Tiffany) from leveling any false claims of the exclusive right to use the term Tiffany for a style of ring setting.

On September 9, 2015 a U.S. District Judge rejected Costco’s claim that Tiffany is a generic term for a kind of ring setting and ruled that Costco willingly sold counterfeit Tiffany diamond rings and would face a jury trial on October 30, 2015 to determine the damages for trademark infringement and counterfeiting.

Nayanika Singhal