‘collective community rights’ or ‘private monopoly rights’ ? - GI tag on ‘Tirupathi Laddu’ oppugns the legislative intent of the statute

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), the trust that administers the famous Lord Venkateswara Temple in Andhra Pradesh has received a Geographical Indication for ‘Tirupathi laddu’, a sacred food (prasadam) offered to the devotees, thus triggering debates as to the very purpose of legislating Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

The statement of case filed by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), along with the GI application which was published in the Geographical Indication Journal No 28 at page 38 presents TTD as the sole producer of 'Tirupathi Laddu' and the sole beneficiary of its sales. While the laddus are made by workers of the temple and hired labourers, there is no mention of any other beneficiary in the application except TTD.

Further, TTD states in its application that ‘The laddu gets its reputation not from its taste alone but from its sanctity as well’, since they are first offered as naivedyam to the Lord” (at page 64 of GI journal). This statement attracts the provisions in section 9(a) and section 9(d) of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and seriously prejudices article 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Section 9(d) says - A Geographical Indication which comprises or contains any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India shall not be registered

Section 9(a) says - A Geographical Indication the use of would be likely to deceive or cause confusion shall not be registered as a geographical indication.

Grant of GI tag on "Tirupathi laddu" is also violative of Section 11 (1) of the Act read with Rules 32(5) and 32(6)(a)&(f), since GIs are supposed to be collective community rights protecting a group of producers.

Section 11(1) of Geographical Indication of Goods Act, 1999 says - Any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under law for the time being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication.

Rule 32(5) of the Geographical Indication of Goods Rules, 2002 says - Every application for the registration of a geographical indication shall be made in the prescribed forms and shall contain a statement containing such particulars of the producers of the concerned goods proposed to be initially registered. The statement may contain such other particulars of the producers mentioned in Section 11(2)(f) including a collective reference to all the producers of the goods in respect of which the application is made.

Rule 32(6)(a) says - The statement contained in the application shall also include an affidavit as to how the applicant claims to represent the interest of the association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law.

Rule 32(6)(f) says - The statement contained in the application shall also include the full name and address of the association of persons or organisation or authority, representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods.

Allowing the 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.

GI tag on 'Tirupathi laddu' also passes a wrong message to the public that temple prasadams (sacred foods) are akin to "industrial goods". There are several temples in South India which are known for their prasadam offered to devotees, say for example the famous ‘aravana payasam’ and ‘appam’ from  sabarimala temple, Kerala. All these prasadams may seek a GI status tomorrow. Then, It would be an irrevocable damage to the values of the society.

The Controller General and his team continue to make mistakes one after the other.  In the beginning of this year, the Trademark Registry granted a 'Trademark on the picture of deity' in Attukal temple Thiruvananthapuram on a Trademark application by the temple trust. GI registry has made a similiar mistake this month by granting GI tag on Tirupati ladddu.

The infamous TRIPS forming part of WTO finally forays into Religion and faith. Mixing Religion with IPR will have serious implications. It is like playing with fire and petrol.

Judicial review of the matter seems to be the need of the hour