Case Study: Tea Board of India Vs. ITC Ltd.

What is GI?

A Geographical Indication (GI) is defined in the TRIPS Agreement. The mark of GI acts as an indicator which identifies a good as which originates in the territory of a Member country, or a regional locality in that territory, which has a quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good because of it its geographical origin. Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of production, there is a clear link between the product and its original place of production.[1]

Rights of a GI Holder

A Geographical Indication right enables the GI tag holder to use the indication to prevents its use by a third party whose product does not stand upon the given standards. For example, in India the Darjeeling tea geographical indication is protected, and the GI right holders of Darjeeling tea can exclude use of the term “Darjeeling” for tea not grown in their tea gardens or not produced according to the given standards of the geographical indication.

However, a protected Geographical Indication does not enable the holder to prevent someone from making a product using the same techniques and having the same human intervention into the product as those set out in the standards for that indication. Protection for a geographical indication is usually obtained by acquiring a right over the sign that constitutes the indication.[2]

Case Study: Tea Board of India Vs. ITC Ltd.[3]

Arguments given by the plaintiff

According to the plaintiff, defendant has infringed the registered geographical indication rights having a fraud and malice intention and the rights of the plaintiff are being hampered in this way –

a) The defendant has fraudulently used the tag of Geographical Indication (GI) in naming one of its business premises as ‘DARJEELING LOUNGE’ which is a registered GI.

b) The defendant having malice intention used the name ‘DARJEELING’ for the presentation and sale of goods which it sells in such lounge.

c) The defendant has disguised its customers by suggesting that the goods which it sells at the said ‘DARJEELING LOUNGE’originate in the said geographical area.

d) The defendant by using the registered GI has hampered the rights of the plaintiff as the defendant misleads its customers by telling them that the products are originated from the designated place of origin.

e) The use of the name ‘DARJEELING’ for the purpose of the said lounge and for the purpose of publicity and selling of goods has created an unfair competition and the plaintiff can use his right of passing off and other rights for the matter.

f) The defendant’s use of the name ‘DARJEELING’ for naming the lounge, advertising and selling products against the honest trade practices.

g) The defendant, by using the impugned name ‘DARJEELING’ for the purpose of the lounge has threated the commercial activities of the persons who are actually in the business of the Darjeeling Tea.

h) The use of the name ‘DARJEELING’ for the purposes of its lounge and all purposes relating thereto is a serious threat to the trade of the existing tea business and also disregard to the registered GI tag having a particular standard.

i) The wrongful acts of the defendant in using the ‘DARJEELING’ name and logo is a highly misleading to the general public as regards the nature or manufacturing process or characteristics and suitability of the goods actually sold in the said lounge.

In order to prevent the Defendant from violating the above rights of the GI tag holder in reference with the Trademark Act and Geographical Indications, the plaintiff had moved an interlocutory application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the rights in any manner possible.

Arguments by the Defendant

According to the defendant, there is no cause of action for filing the suit as the suit was barred by limitation. Since the plaintiff had only certification trademark, no right or cause of action could arise for the plaintiff under such certification trademark against the defendant’s using the “DARJEELING LOUNGE” in view with the Trademark Act. As per the Defendant the suit is also not maintainable under section 26 of the Geographical Indications Act.

Judgement

The Hon’ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi of Calcutta High Court, opined that the suit by Tea Board was barred by limitation as the hotel lounge was started in January 2003. But the suit was filed only in 2010 which is beyond the limitation provided under Section 26(4) of the GI act which is for 5 years.

The Court went into the merits of the case and Justice Munshi observed that, “It is also not found that there has been any infringement under the Geographical Indications of Goods Act because the defendant’s ‘Lounge’ is not relating to goods. Plaintiff’s rights conferred by the registration of the word ‘Darjeeling’ is only in relation to tea. ‘Darjeeling’ is not a trade mark. It is only used to indicate geographical indication of a place of origin of tea originating from Darjeeling. The law relates to geographical indication is confined only to goods. The plaintiff does not own any right in the name of ‘Darjeeling’ for any goods other than tea.The Geographical Indications Act can only extend to goods and admittedly, the defendant’s lounge does not fall within the category of ‘goods’”.

The Hon’ble Court further found that there is no unfair competition under the definitions of Geographical Indications Act as the business area of plaintiff and defendant is totally different and among the 87 tea estates none of them had raised any issue. The Board also claimed that its rights under Trademarks Act 1999 also stood violated by the use of name ‘Darjeeling’ for the lounge. But the Court noted that the Board only had certification trademark within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Trademarks Act 1999, which does not amount to a registered trademark. The certification trademark gave the Board only the authority to certify that the concerned tea is connected with Darjeeling region and here the defendant is dealing with service.

The Court stated that there is no relation between the defendants ‘DARJEELING LOUNGE’ and the plaintiff’s rights under Trademark or GI act and the allegations are baseless and the Court dismissed the suit for Rs.10 lakhs.[4]

Conclusion   

From the above case we can conclude that a registered GI gives right to the GI tag holder to stop any person or entity from using the registered mark of GI or its name in a product which might be similar or deceptively similar to the registered product or it might not be similar to the registered product, but have the registered name in it. But if a person is using the registered name or logo of GI in a service then that will not come under the ambit of The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 because if we look at the definition of GI itself given in the TRIPS and in the section 2(e) of the domestic GI act then we will find the use of word “good/s” in it and the word service is mentioned no where and GI is about the product with special characteristics because of environment, climate and human intervention of a specific region. So, on this merits court dismissed the appeal by the plaintiff.

Author: Rohan Dalbehera, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.

References:

[1] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ta_docs_e/modules4_e.pdf

[2]https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/

[3]MANU/WB/0277/2019

[4]Supra 3

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010