 "Branded basmati sales to touch 2.9 mt")
The IPAB on February 5, has directed the Assistant Registrar of Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai, to proceed with registration of Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Basmati rice as per the geographical demarcation conducted by APEDA, which did not have the areas of Madhya Pradesh covered under it.
The state of Madhya Pradesh has claimed that 13 out of its 51 districts has been cultivating Basmati rice and is entitled to receive the GI protection.
The Madras High Court today directed APEDA not to take coercive action against Basmati farmers from Madhya Pradesh pending disposal of the writ petition, said Sai Deepak, counsel who appeared for the state. The Court has also issued notice to APEDA and others seeking their response in three weeks. The next hearing is to be held in April. The court has also observed that the procedure for GI registration for Madhya Pradesh, as the IPAB directed the registry to consider afresh, can be continued with a timeline of six months, he added.
Following the IPAB order, on February 15, 2016, the GI Registry also issued an order registering the GI for Basmati for the geaographical demarcation provided by APEDA. Incidentally, the state of Madhya Pradesh filed its petition with the Madras High Court seeking direction to set aside the IPAB's order on the same day.
In its writ petition, the State of Madhya Pradesh claims that the State currently produces around one million tonnes of Basmati rice in a single paddy season and the order of IPAB would result in immediately altering the status quo to the detriment of the State and its 80,000 Basmati farmers and their families.
It added that the IPAB order erraneously presumes that the State never challenged the areas claimed by APEDA as traditional Basmati cultivation areas. The State argues that APEDA has not mapped the exact area where Basmati is grown and gave a blanket protection to some of the States while it did not pay heed to the request of Madhya Pradesh to include 13 specific districts in the GI application.
IPAB, in its order, also asked the registrar to reconsider the matter of inclusion of uncovered area including the State of Madhya Pradesh into the area covered under the GI for Basmati, afresh by affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides - the States and APEDA. It has also dismissed two petitions from Basmati Growers Association of Lahore, Pakistan, related to the matter.
The IPAB order was in an appeal filed by APEDA against the order of the assistant registrar in December 31, 2013, related to a dispute between the export promotion body and the State of Madhya Pradesh and Daawat Foods for inclusion of some of the uncovered area in Madhya Pradesh into the GI application filed by APEDA. Agreeing to the arguments of Daawat Foods and others, the assitant registrar has asked APEDA to amend the application to include the uncovered area with map of the region clearly demarcating the area of production within 60 days from the date of the order on December 31, 2013. The IPAB has set aside this finding.
APEDA claimed that the rice has been grown and produced in the states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and parts of Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir and submitted the data to establish its claim in this region. It also argued that a worldwide watch agency was appointed to monitor the trade mark registers worldwide for any third party attempted registration in the name of "Basmati" or any deceptive variations and it has taken legal actions in 40 countries against rival third parties for alleged attempt of infringement. It has also successfully challenged an attempt by Ricetec, a US-based company from taking monopoly on the rice grains.
