India-Pakistan showdowns, whether in sports or political relations, are always newsworthy. This time there was a change in the battleground and the reason for the showdown was the claim over 'BASMATI' rice as Geographical Indication (GI) by both the countries. The Indian body Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority ('APEDA') filed an application for protection of BASMATI rice as a GI for certain regions in India this, was opposed by the Basmati Growers Association, Pakistan (BGA).
A notice of opposition was served upon APEDA and accordingly the due procedure of filing counterstatement to opposition; following which, the BGA was directed by the Assistant Registrar of Geographical Indications to file evidence in support of opposition. There was a delay on behalf of BGA in filing the evidence in support of opposition, this fact was admitted by BGA itself. The APEDA filed an interlocutory petition contending that BGA had not filed the evidence within the stipulated time period under Rule 44 of the GI rules, 2002. It was also claimed that the affidavit filed by BGA was not in compliance with the prescribed format and therefore, the Opposition filed by BGA ought to be dismissed as 'abandoned'. It was further stated by APEDA that compliance with rule 44 of the GI rules was a mandatory requirement and non-compliance would result in the opposition being considered as abandoned. The APEDA succeeded in its claims against BGA before the Assistant Registrar of GI and hence an appeal was filed by BGA against APEDA before the IPAB.
The IPAB compared this provision of the GI rules with the Trademark Act rules since, the procedure for filing an opposition to an application for registration (of trademark and Geographical Indication) is similar. Rule 50 of the Trade mark rules is similarly worded as rule 44 of the GI rules and due to this reason the IPAB took into consideration interpretation of various Indian courts pertaining to strict compliance with rule 50.
The IPAB upon referring to various decisions concluded that the compliance under rule 50 of the trademark rules (hence, also rule 44 of the GI rules) was mandatory and if the evidence of opposition was not filed within the prescribed time the application would be deemed to be abandoned. The IPAB further ruled that the GI act was a special act and therefore it was necessary for parties to be vigilant about their rights and procedure to be followed under the Act. Since, the BGA had failed in adhering to the time frame prescribed under the rules it was only correct that the opposition be deemed as abandoned. The order of the Assistant Registrar was upheld by the IPAB. This means that for now, Pakistan has missed an opportunity to oppose the Indian GI application for Basmati rice, it remains to be seen if this order of IPAB is challenged further by BGA.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
