Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Geographical Indications in Horticulture:An Indian Perspective


Affiliations
1 Central Horticultural Experiment Station, ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Aiginia, Bhubaneswar - 751 019, Odisha, India
 

Geographical Indication, an exclusive community rights, recognizes crucial roles played by location, climate and human know-how in making the products distinguished on the basis of their unique intrinsic attributes. It acts as an effective tool in protecting and rewarding not only the market potential of elite items but also the traditional knowledge associated with them. Since the enactment of the GI Act, 89 agricultural items have been accorded with GI tags till March 2018 and among them the share of horticultural items is more than 75 percent. Among horticultural crops, maximum GIs have been accorded to fruit crops (36) followed by vegetable crops (11). Plantation crops and spices share 8 GI tags each, whereas flowering plants and medicinal and aromatic plants conferred with 5 and 2 GI tags, respectively. Mango, citrus, banana, chilli, tea, cardamom, jasmine, grapes, pineapple, brinjal, onion and coffee are important horticultural crops with regard to GI tags. The state-wise ownership of GIs in horticultural crops indicates activism of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The efforts made by public and quasi-public institutions in obtaining GI tags are indeed a significant to protect, exploit market potential and to facilitate better return to legitimate rural producer from origin-linked reputed products as under the TRIPS Agreement unless a geographical indication is protected in the country of its origin there is no obligation under this Agreement for other countries to extend reciprocal protection.

Keywords

Geographical Indication, Horticulture, sui generis, Rural Economy, Traditional Knowledge, Trips Agreement, WTO, Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Das K, Socioeconomic Implications o f Protecting Geographical Indications in India, Centre for WTO Studies, New Delhi, 2009.
  • Garcia C, Marie-Vivien D, Kushalappa C G, Chengappa P G & Nanaya K M, Geographical Indications and Biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India, Mountain Research and Development, 27 (2007) 206-10.
  • Sahai S & Barpujari I, Are Geographical Indications Better Suited to Protect Indigenous Knowledge? A Developing Country Perspective, Gene Campaign, New Delhi, 2015.
  • Das K, Protection of India’s Geographical Indications: An Overview of the Indian Legislation and the TRIPS Scenario. Indian Journal o f International Law, 46 (2006) 39-73.
  • Jain S, Effects of the extension of geographical indications: a south Asian perspective. Asia-Pacific Development Journal, 16 (2009) 65-86.
  • Nagarajan S, Geographical indications and agriculturerelated intellectual property rights issues, Current Science, 92 (2007) 197-71.
  • Srivastava S C, Geographical Indications under TRIPS Agreement and Legal Framework in India: Part I. Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 9 (2004) 9-13.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Geographical indication protection in India, Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2011) 429-30.
  • Pant R, Protecting and promoting traditional knowledge in India: What role for geographical indications? International Institute for Environment and Development. UK, 2015.
  • Vinayan S, Geographical indications in India: Issues and challenges—An overview, Journal o f World Intellectual Property, 20 (2017) 119-132.
  • Thomas W, Economic competitiveness through geographic indications. International Journal o f Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research, 9 (2013) 182-5.
  • Bramley C, Bienabe E & Kirsten J, The economics of geographical indications: Towards a conceptual framework for geographical indication research in developing countries, The Economics o f Intellectual Property, http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1012-chapter4.pdf
  • Vats N K, Geographical indication - The factor of rural development and strengthening economy, Journal o f Intellectual Property Rights, 21 (2016) 347-354.
  • Jena P R, Ngokkuen C, Rahut D B & Grote U, Geographical indication protection and rural livelihoods: Insights from India and Thailand, Asia Pacific Economic Literature, 29 (2015) 174-85.
  • Pacciani A, Belletti G, Marescotti A & Scaramuzzi S D, The role o f typical products in fostering rural development and the effects o f regulation, 73rd Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Ancona, Italy, June 28-30, 2001.
  • Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai, 2018, http://www.ipindia.nic.in/registered-gls.htm.
  • World Intellectual Property Organization-International Bureau (WIPO), Geographical indications: historical background, nature o f rights, existing systems for protection and obtaining effective protection in other countries. Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, sixth session, Geneva, 2 0 1 1 .
  • Das K, Protection o f Geographical Indications. An overview o f select issues with particular reference to India. Centre for Trade and Development, New Delhi, 2007.
  • The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), The Protection o f Geographical Indications in India: Issues and Challenges. Briefing paper, New Delhi, 2013.

Abstract Views: 212

PDF Views: 147




  • Geographical Indications in Horticulture:An Indian Perspective

Abstract Views: 212  |  PDF Views: 147

Authors

Kundan Kishore
Central Horticultural Experiment Station, ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Aiginia, Bhubaneswar - 751 019, Odisha, India

Abstract


Geographical Indication, an exclusive community rights, recognizes crucial roles played by location, climate and human know-how in making the products distinguished on the basis of their unique intrinsic attributes. It acts as an effective tool in protecting and rewarding not only the market potential of elite items but also the traditional knowledge associated with them. Since the enactment of the GI Act, 89 agricultural items have been accorded with GI tags till March 2018 and among them the share of horticultural items is more than 75 percent. Among horticultural crops, maximum GIs have been accorded to fruit crops (36) followed by vegetable crops (11). Plantation crops and spices share 8 GI tags each, whereas flowering plants and medicinal and aromatic plants conferred with 5 and 2 GI tags, respectively. Mango, citrus, banana, chilli, tea, cardamom, jasmine, grapes, pineapple, brinjal, onion and coffee are important horticultural crops with regard to GI tags. The state-wise ownership of GIs in horticultural crops indicates activism of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The efforts made by public and quasi-public institutions in obtaining GI tags are indeed a significant to protect, exploit market potential and to facilitate better return to legitimate rural producer from origin-linked reputed products as under the TRIPS Agreement unless a geographical indication is protected in the country of its origin there is no obligation under this Agreement for other countries to extend reciprocal protection.

Keywords


Geographical Indication, Horticulture, sui generis, Rural Economy, Traditional Knowledge, Trips Agreement, WTO, Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999.

References