IPAB apprised of its 'suo motu' powers under Section 27(4) of GI Act
In reply to my petition seeking ’suo motu’ action against GI registration of ‘Tirupati laddu’, IPAB informed me last week that it had no ’suo motu’ power. I gave them the following reply to apprise them of their ’suo motu’ powers under the Act.
” First of all, let me thank IPAB for the letter referenced above. The prompt reply to my petition reflects that IPAB appreciates the merit of the petition (Judicial/appellate authorities generally ignore letter-petitions that lack substance). Therefore, it is inferred that IPAB is interested in reviewing GI registry’s decision, but for the doubt on ’suo motu’ powers. In this connection, I would like to invite your attention to sub-section (4) of Section 27 of Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999.
Sub-section (4) of Section 27 says “The tribunal, of its own motion, may, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the parties concerned and after giving them an opportunity of being heard, make any order referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).”
It is very clear from the above that the “tribunal” can proceed on its own volition (suo moto) for cancellation or rectification of GI Registration. It is also understood from sub-section (1) of section 27 and sub-section (2) of section 27 that the word “tribunal” refers to Appellate Board or Registrar.
Since my stake in the matter is purely ‘public interest’, it may not be appropriate for me to seek rectification of the register under Rule 65 of Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002 as a “person aggrieved” or “person interested”.Chairman, IPAB may kindly take ’suo motu’ action in the matter under Section 27(4) of GI Act.
I hope that IPAB would honour the ‘PIL mechanism’ encouraged in our country through letter-petitions. It is also worth mentioning here that Madras high court has directed the petitioner to seek a remedy before IPAB while dismissing the public interest petition in the same matter.”
One of the leading IPR attorney from India, who supports my endeavor says
” Considering that it is an entry wrongly remaining on the register, I would say that IPAB was wrong in not rectifying the GI under Section 27(2) of the Act. It is an entry wrongly remaining on the register because under section 11 (1), an application for a GI can be made only by ‘any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law for the time being in forcerepresenting the interests of the producers. TTD has applied for registering this in its own name and has named itself as the beneficiary. To that extent, the registration falls foul of Section 11 and is, therefore, wrongly remaining on the register. This registration in my opinion is a clear misuse of the provisions of the Act and can result in a lot of such unwarranted registrations in the name of religious trusts.”
-
About the Author:
R.S. Praveen RajScientist – IP Management & Technology TransferNational Institute for Interdisciplinary Science & Technology (NIIST),(Formerly RRL, Trivandrum), Industrial Estate P.O., Pappanamcode,Thiruvananthapuram – 695 019, Kerala, India.
http://secularcitizen.blogspot.com/2009/12/r-s-praveen-raj.html
Article Source
