“One interesting aspect of the claim is the documentation and collection of Nepalese basmati rice since the 1970s,” says Upreti. “In principle, Nepal has presented solid claims, however, the challenge lies in demonstrating those with documented evidence.”
Under the current framework, potential GIs are protected by trademark law. Though there have been voices from stakeholders for creating sui generis legislation for GIs, unfortunately in absence of such, potential products such as ‘Nepal tea’, ‘Nepal coffee’ and ‘Chyangra Pashmina’, is branded under collective trademark. The 2017 national IP policy highlights the need for a legal framework for GIs. Further, it encourages sui generis models for the protection of GIs.
“Maybe the current Basmati rice dispute might act as an eye-opener for Nepal Government to bring legislation at the earliest,” says Upreti. “In 2019, I have identified potential GIs products in Nepal and argued GIs as an area where there is a need for policy intervention. In the past, I have also called for a comprehensive white paper on the prospects of GIs and economic viability to maintain a GI system in Nepal. It is important to assess the opportunities and risks represented by GIs.
Nepal should learn from the current Basmati rice claims and expedite the legislative reforms.”
Excel V. Dyquiangco