Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Contentions on behalf of JKE (Respondent):-

11.1 Referring to the provisions of GI Act and the GI Rules, 2013, specifically Section 17, 20, 22 and Rule 56, JKE (Respondent) argued that it is the only the AU which can institute the suit or the GI for itself and no other entity under the GI Act is authorised to use the GI tag. It is also submitted that RP can only go 'piggyback' on AU in light of Section 21 if a suit for infringement is to be instituted as without AU, the RP would have no independent entitlement or 'right to sue' for infringement of GI tag.

25. The Central Government has enacted GI Rules, 2002 in exercise of delegated powers conferred by Section 87 of the GI Act, operative with effect from 8th March 2002, GI Rules, 2002. The comprehensive dispensation of registration provided under the Rules further brings out the difference between AU and RP. Rule 56 titled "Authorised User" occurring under Chapter III permits any application to be made vide Form GI-3 under Section 17 of the GI Act.

26. Rule 59 titled 'Registration of an authorised user entry in the Register', vide Rule 59(2)(a) obligates the authorities to also enter the principal place of business in India of the RP of the concerned GI. Rule 60 occurring under Chapter IV titled 'RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION AND RESTORATION', vide Rules 60(2) and 60(5) specifies a precondition of application of renewal to be filed by the RP and in the absence of RP, the AU. Rule 69 titled 'Alteration of Address in register' permits the RP or AU of the concerned GI to get the address of the GI altered through an application made in this regard. Rule 78 occurring under Chapter VII comprises provisions of additional protection for certain goods under Section 22 of the GI Act statutorily mandates the filing of a joint application for any additional protection by the RP as well as all the AUs of the concerned GI, whose all names are entered in Part-B Register under Section 7 of the GI Act. The various forms appended to the GI Rules, specifically GI-1 require the details of the applicant representing the interest of the producers of the said good proposed to be declared as GI under Section 11 of the GI Act.

Interpretative Analysis of the GI Act & Rules:-

27. A tabular chart of various provisions under the GI Act & the Rules is spelt out hereunder, wherever the role of RP has been stipulated, vis a vis the AU of any GI :

Provisions pertaining to Role of RP OR AU/RP AND AU under the GI Act Section & Title Description 18 (3) & (4). 18(3)- The Registrar shall, on application made in the Duration, renewal, prescribed manner, by the registered proprietor or by removal, and the authorised user and within the prescribed period restoration of and subject to the payment of the prescribed fee, registration renew the registration of the geographical indication or authorised user, as the case may be, for a period of ten years from the date of expiration of the original registration or of the last renewal of registration, as the case may be .

69. Alteration of Clauses (1) to (6) permit the Registered proprietor or Address in register. Authorised User of a Geographical Indication to get the address of the Geographical indication altered through an application made in this regard.

31. From the overall study of anatomy of the GI Act, the Rules of 2002 framed thereunder, it is clear that the application for grant of GI status can be filed by an applicant, who has to be a producer or any person entrusted as the RP. It is on the application of the RP or any other applicant that GI tag comes into existence, never otherwise. The RP can alternatively, even in the absence of AU as postulated under various provisions mentioned supra, institute an action or proceeding in his own right, one of them being a renewal of GI or for grant of additional protection. The RP needs to be informed and updated whenever any new AU is added to the register of any GI of good concerned. Thus the RP can very well be treated as an entity independent of AU, under the provisions of the GI Act for the purposes of obtaining or continuing with the GI tag of any good concerned. Otherwise, the GI Act would have made specific mention of the same as done vide Section 68, mandating, compulsory impleadment of AU along with RP or any other party when disputes under the provisions specified therein are involved. The RP has an independent legal status and entitlement to relate himself to the GI tag of the good concerned under the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. The argument of JKE (Respondent), therefore, does not have any legs to survive that except AU, RP has no existence and has no claim or right relatable to the usage of GI tag of any good. As is clear from Section 17, AU has a right to get himself registered separately and claim protection of GI independently. However, the mere existence or registration of AU cannot operate to the complete exclusion of the RP so as to dislodge and displace him from claiming the protection of any GI or standing against infringement thereof. This is the overall scheme of the GI Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. Section 21 has also to be viewed in the larger scheme of the GI Act, titled 'Rights conferred by registration'. Section 20 preceding Section 21 placed under the same Chapter titled 'EFFECT OF REGISTRATION' in a negatively worded covenant debars any person from instituting any proceeding pertaining to the infringement of unregistered GI. The legislative intent is loud and clear that it is protecting only the registered GI, nothing more and nothing less. Section 21 thus is enacted to protect the registered GI, the unregistered version of which has no protection or identity available under the Act. The title of Section 21 indicates the end purpose and intent behind its enactment, which is the right arising out of an incident to registration. Clearly, when registration can be applied for by both RP or AU, then both entities shall equally be entitled to the rights flowing out of the same as its consequence thereof. It cannot be contended that without an application preferred under Section 11, a GI tag can come into existence on its own and that the application under Section 11 has to necessarily be either by the RP, AU or both. In the absence of RP, many procedures and processes relating to GI tag would not occur, as is luminescent from the provisions mentioned supra. Thus the registration of GI gives equal recognition & rights to the RP as well as AU of obtaining the 'right to obtain relief' in the event of infringement of GI by any person. Section 21(1)(a) is different from Section 21(1)(b) and the difference in legislative drafting of the same further magnified the above interpretation. On one hand, Section 21(1)(a) accords RP and AU the 'right to obtain relief' for any infringement and Section 21(1)(b) on the other hand accords the 'exclusive right' to the use of goods whose GI is registered. The exclusive right to use is qua the world at large and cannot work to the exclusion of RP who is, as in the present case 'Bhagirathi' of the GI tag itself, the original applicant. Petitioner is the 'Bhagirathi' of the GI tag in India as is luminescent from the notification of January 2009. Therefore, the legislature could not have been presumed to have conferred exclusive rights on the AU to the exclusion of RP itself, the originator of the very existence of a right. On the principles of ubi jus ibi remedium, viz., if there is a right, there is a remedy, therefore, RP would also have a right to file a restraint suit for grant of injunction against any unauthorised user of GI tag.