Chennai: The Intellectual Property Rights Attorney AssoÂciÂation (IPRAA) has appÂroached the Madras high court to direct the Union government to grant additional protection to the registered GI Handicrafts, TexÂtiles and Handloom prodÂucts.
A division bench comprising Justices K B K Vasuki and S Vaidyanathan before whom the PIL filed by IPRAA by its president P Sanjai Gandhi came up for hearing, directed the DepaÂrtment of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the Union Ministry for InduÂsÂtries and Commerce, to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in this regard within 6 weeks.
According to Sanjai GanÂdhi, additional protection was provided only for wines and spirits and not for other GI protected goods.
The Additional protection privilege to wines as per section 22 of the Geographical Indication Act allows foreign producers to enjoy the benefit of additional protection in India, whereby no registration with respect to wine and spirits can be made.
There were about 193 products registered under the GI Act, of which, 128 were handicraft products. Few of the well known products registered under the GI Act were KanchÂeeÂpuram Silk, Madurai SunÂgadi Saree, Salem Silk Known as Salem Venpattu, Kovai Cora Cotton, Arani Silk, Swamimalai Bronze Icons, Arani Silk, Bhavani Jamakkalam, Nachiarkoil Kuthuvilakku (Nachiarkoil Lamp), Thanjavur Veenai, Thanjavur Art Plate etc.,
Therefore, it was very essÂential to grant additional protection under the provisions of the GI Act to the existing protected GI handicrafts.
This was vital so as to avoid unscrupulous third parties causing infringement, he added.
He said the registered and protected products under the GI Act hold high goodwill and demand world over.
It was a cause for concern whereby if third parties wholly unconnected unscÂrÂupuÂlously start imitating such protected GI products by merely changing the fragmentation of the spelling or form or representation.
This would affect the livelihood of those directly or indirectly dependent on the protection afforded and eventually the economy of the nation at large.
The very protection under GI Act was availed with an idea to stop/prevent others/third parties not connected to the geographical region of origin from imitating the same product and sell it under the original name. Therefore, additional protection was necessary to these products.
Hence, he sent a representation to the authorities in this regard. But there was no response, he added.
