Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 5798 and 9564 of 2016
Decided On : 27-02-2020
For the Appellant :J. Sai Deepak, Avinash Sharma, R. Abhishek, Vikram P. Jain, Malika N. for T.K. Bhaskar, Satish Parasaran, Senior Advocate and Mohit Goel.
For the Respondents:P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate for Rajendra Kumar, Ashish Kanta Singh, Gladys Daniel, K. Muthu Selvam, P. Sanjay Gandhi and Ashok Kumar.
Headnote:
Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 - Section 12, 13, 14 and 60 - Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002 - Rule 33 and 37 - Withdrawal of acceptance - Intellectual Property - Validity and/or correctness of the Order - Opposition to registration - Second respondent in the respective Writ Petitions namely Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority ('APEDA') had filed an application before third respondent, Assistant Registrar of Geographical Indications, Chennai to register Geographical Indication ( 'GI') for 'Basmati rice' under Class 30 of Act, 1999 - Said application was numbered as Application - Thereafter, third respondent issued a formality compliance report to APEDA - Held, Petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available by filing an application to Registrar of Trade Mark under Section 27 of Act seeking to cancel or vary GI Certificate issued to APEDA. It is a statutory remedy, which petitioners ought to have availed instead of pursuing with present writ petitions. Therefore, court view that contentions raised on behalf of second respondent/APEDA relating to maintainability of these writ petitions are well founded - IPAB, in our opinion, has rightly directed third respondent to issue GI Registration Certificate to APEDA in respect of the areas indicated in Application No. 145, over which the petitioners have no qualm or grievance. Of course, for a same produce, two GI Certificates of Registration cannot be issued and precisely that is the reason why the petitioners have come up with present writ petitions. At same time, when once a certificate for Registration of GI for Basmati Rice was issued and it was also challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.s and they are pending before this Court, the relief sought for in these writ petitions had only become academic - Writ Petitions dismissed
ORDER :
R. Subbiah, J.
1. Both these writ petitions are filed assailing the common order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (IPAB) Chennai (in short 'Board') in various Original Applications.
2. W.P. No. 5798 of 2016 is filed questioning the validity and/or correctness of the Order passed by the first respondent-Board on 05.02.2016 in OA/5/2014/GI/CH and M.P. No. 9/2014 in OA/5/2014/GI/CH, seeking to quash the said order dated 05.02.2016 and to direct the third respondent to conduct a de novo hearing of the matter.
3. WP No. 9564 of 2016 has been filed praying to quash the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the first respondent-Board in OA/6/2014/GI/CH and M.P. Nos. 10 and 11/2014 in OA/6/2014/GI/CH and to issue a consequential direction directing the third respondent to cancel the Geographical Indication on 'Basmati Rice' registered as Geographical Indication No. 145, vide Certificate No. 238, dated 15th February 2015 and to conduct a de novo enquiry in the matter.
4. The learned counsel on either side advanced common arguments in both these writ petitions since the common order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Board is under challenge in both the writ petitions. Therefore, we are taking up both the writ petitions for hearing together for disposal.
5. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, certain facts, which are germane and absolutely warranted are elucidated hereunder.
6. The second respondent in the respective Writ Petitions namely Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (hereinafter referred as 'APEDA') had filed an application dated 26.11.2008 before the third respondent, The Assistant Registrar of Geographical Indications, Chennai to register Geographical Indication (in short 'GI') for 'Basmati rice' under Class 30 of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 (in short 'Act').
7. The said application was numbered as Application No. 145. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a formality compliance report to APEDA on 23.12.2009. On 29.12.2009, the third respondent by communication to APEDA, intimated the constitution of a Consultative group under Rule 33 of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002 (in short 'Rules') and the meeting was to be held between the consultative group on 29.01.2010.
8. On 20.01.2010, APEDA filed their response to formality compliance report sought for by the third respondent and it was also subjected to deliberation and recommendations by the consultative group. Upon appraisal of the same, the third respondent issued a formal Examination Report on 04.03.2010 seeking certain information. Even in the Formality Compliance Report, the third respondent permitted APEDA to file a revised application based on the reply sent to the Formality Compliance Report within a period of two months. Accordingly, on 22.04.2010, APEDA filed a response to the Formality Compliance Report together with a revised application.
9. The said application was accepted by the third respondent and published in the GI Registry Journal No. 34 on 31.03.2010. On coming to know about the acceptance of the application filed by the APEDA, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner herein, filed its Statement of Opposition in TOP. No. 19 before the third respondent. Similar oppositions were also filed by others from Madhya Pradesh which are numbered as TOP. Nos. 13 to 17. Resisting the applications for opposition, APEDA filed its counter affidavit on 13.12.2010 before the third respondent.
10. At this stage, on 26.04.2013, State of Madhya Pradesh has filed an application under Section 12 of the Act read with Rule 37 of the Rules, seeking withdrawal of the acceptance of the application submitted by APEDA. Similar applications were also filed by the other parties from the State of Madhya Pradesh unde
