Application No 14 for the registration of the Geographical Indication (GI) of “Basmati Rice” was filed on 19th<\/sup> August 2004 in Class 30 by M\/s Heritage, Haryana under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.<\/p>\n India and Pakistan had agreed to protect the GI of Basmati rice varieties covered by EC Regulation 1549\/2004, as detailed in Council decisions 2004\/617\/EC and 2004\/618\/EC, when the GI application was filed before the Registry. Basmati is the name given to certain varieties of rice with unique properties, grown exclusively in specific areas of the Indo-Gangetic plains. These areas previously included the northern part of the Western Punjab on both sides of the India\u2013Pakistan border, Jammu, Haryana, Uttarakhand, and Western Uttar Pradesh, as stated in the GI application filed before the GI Registry in India.<\/p>\n The grant of a patent by the United States Patent Office to the American company Rice Tec Inc was claimed to have had repercussions for both India and Pakistan.<\/p>\n The Agriculture and Processed Food Products Exports Promotion Agency (APEDA) is an autonomous statutory authority established in 1986 under the APEDA Act and sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce, to promote agricultural and processed food products from India. Its authority was originally confined to activities relevant to exports. The APEDA Act was amended by the Union Cabinet on 18 October 2008 to empower APEDA to register and protect intellectual property rights or similar rights, including GI, for certain special agricultural products such as Basmati rice in India and elsewhere.<\/p>\n APEDA filed GI Application No 145 for the registration of Basmati rice on 26 November 2008 before the GI Registry in India, covering Basmati rice grown in Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir. An objection to the application was filed by six parties: Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association, Narmada Cereals, Daawat Foods, SSA International, Madhya Kshetra Basmati Exporters Association, and the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Their ground was that Madhya Pradesh was not included as a Basmati-growing area, which would adversely affect farmers who depend on the cultivation and export of Basmati rice in that state.<\/p>\n A dispute over rights had been ongoing between three stakeholders: the Lahore-based Basmati Growers Association (BGA) of Pakistan, the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan (REAP), and APEDA of India, following the decision of the Pakistani trademark Registrar to assign said rights to the BGA in May 2008. That decision of the Pakistani registrar was challenged in the Sindh High Court in September of the same year.<\/p>\n The order passed by the Indian GI Registry on December 31, 2013, allowed six oppositions filed by Madhya Pradesh-based parties to APEDA’s application for Geographical Indication on Basmati (Application No. 145 in Class 30). The primary grounds of all six oppositions were:<\/p>\n The opponents provided extensive historical and commercial evidence to demonstrate that Madhya Pradesh has a history of Basmati cultivation dating back to at least the early 1900s.<\/p>\n Allowing the oppositions, the Assistant Registrar observed:<\/p>\n The applicant has failed to satisfy the fundamental requirement of clear, specific and reasoned demarcation of Basmati-cultivation areas.<\/p>\n The geographical area of production is an important aspect to be considered when granting Geographical Indication. The area has to be defined with clarity and without any ambiguity. “The GI application remains imperfect, if it fails to cover the actual producing area. Not even a micron point space actual cultivation area should be left uncovered.”<\/p>\n In the case of Geographical indication(s) the dispute is not between the parties alone, there is always the issue of public interest. “The Registry has a bounden duty to protect the interest of producers by covering the entire area of production.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Consequently, the Registry directed APEDA to amend its application to include certain areas of Madhya Pradesh as Basmati-growing areas.<\/p>\n APEDA appealed against the Registry’s order before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The Lahore-based BGA also moved against the Registry’s order requiring the inclusion of Madhya Pradesh in APEDA’s amended application. The BGA had, in addition, opposed the grant of GI to Indian Basmati rice in its entirety. Various other parties also filed oppositions before the IPAB, including the Department of Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Development of Madhya Pradesh and the Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers’ Association Samiti based in Raisen district.<\/p>\n A further development arose in late February 2015, when the IPAB passed an order allowing a Madhya Pradesh farmers’ society, the New Darpan Social Welfare Society, to implead itself in the litigation. APEDA objected, arguing that impleadment of this kind might generate additional litigation and that no statutory provisions or IPAB procedural rules permitted a third party to interject in this manner. The IPAB, however, held that the New Darpan Social Welfare Society was a necessary party to the proceedings, noting that it was “a welfare organisation fighting for the cause of farmers in Madhya Pradesh”, and allowed the impleadment. The IPAB also allowed the appeal filed by the Lahore-based BGA against APEDA’s application.<\/p>\n The legal journey of Basmati rice towards obtaining a Geographical Indication tag, having continued for more than a decade, remains unresolved.<\/p>\n This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This post provides a detailed account of the legal and procedural developments in the Geographical Indication registration of Basmati rice in India. It covers APEDA’s efforts, opposition from Madhya Pradesh stakeholders, and the ongoing disputes before Indian authorities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":80,"footnotes":""},"categories":[185,6],"tags":[1484,255,184,11265,7251,7099,7252],"class_list":["post-25711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geographical-indications-gi","category-intellectual-property","tag-apeda","tag-basmati-rice","tag-geographical-indication","tag-gi-act-1999","tag-gi-registration-india","tag-indian-agriculture","tag-rice-export"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25711"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25711\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149822,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25711\/revisions\/149822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}APEDA’s Role and Application<\/h2>\n
Pakistan’s Parallel Dispute<\/h2>\n
Registry Order of December 2013<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
IPAB Proceedings<\/h2>\n
Disclaimer<\/h2>\n