“The minister’s vision and commitment are laudable especially when you see the potential of GIs as a tool to positively transform the social and economic stature of communities involved in the production of goods branded with GIs,” said Ashish Kanta Singh, a partner at K&S Partners in Gurugram.

Be that as it may, Sing believes the priority should instead be to make the law an enabler for realizing the true potential of GIs.

He noted that the purpose of GI registration is to uplift the social and economic status of the communities involved in the production of these goods. Such purpose can be achieved only if there is consistency in the quality of the products. In this connection, work begins even before registration and continues after.

“Maintaining quality control of a GI can be achieved only through suitable measures implemented through a well-layered supply chain system,” he pointed out. “The current GI law only looks at the registration of a GI without having any checks on the pre-registration or post-registration steps nor does it support any quality control systems and their maintenance for GIs.

Singh continued: “Hence, the main issue to be pondered upon is whether the act of registration itself will bring their socio-economic transformation and market access to the products. The answer, in my opinion, is ‘NO.’”

He said discrepancies in the Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 must be ironed out. Two of these discrepancies are the lack of quality control schemes and the redundant concept of “authorized users.”

The term “authorized users” is borrowed from the Trademarks Act. According to Singh, it does not fit into the scheme of the GI Act. He explained: “Unlike trademarks, GIs are owned by their producers – all relevant stakeholders – and the applicant or registrant of a GI is merely a custodian of it. It is unthinkable as to why the owner of a ‘property’ would need to take permission from a ‘custodian’ to use the same. Recently, the GI law was amended to the effect that any person who applies to register themselves as an authorized user can do so and the registered proprietor can be merely notified.  This is a dangerous provision especially when there is no quality control requirement under the law.”

The other discrepancies of the GI Act include the lack of accountability of the proprietor to adhere to quality control schemes, lack of sanctions for quality mismanagement and others.

Proprietors of GIs also do not have any criminal remedies available under the act. Yet, such rights are given to “authorized users.” “This is tricky,” Singh said, “because an authorized user can potentially harass a lawful unregistered user of a GI.”

- Espie Angelica A. de Leon