AREA: Patents
FACTS:
In late 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to Ricetec Inc., the United States-based multinational company headquartered in Alvin, Texas for a novel ‘grain’ also known as ‘basmati’. The company claimed the protection of new varieties of ‘basmati’ crops with better qualities than the original crop. It has been using several versions of the crop by selling it with the name ‘Jasmati’ or ‘Kasmati’ in the international rice market. Moreover, it was also professed to have developed a novel strain of the aromatic rice by inter-breeding of basmati rice with another crop known as American basmati or ‘Texmati’. The patent was granted to the company for basmati rice grains and variety by USPTO. Later, the patent was opposed by the Indian NGOs like Research Foundation for Science, the Centre for Food Safety and ultimately, the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research too, objected to it. The Indian sub-continent protected its traditional crop basmati while Thailand contested for the safeguarding of its claim for jasmine rice. In 2000, after examining evidence, the Indian Government challenged the patent claims by the company.
ISSUES:
Whether the name ‘basmati’ is a ‘generic’ term or specifically originates from the aromatic rice grown in India and various South-Asian countries?
Whether the patent granted to Ricetec be revoked due to protests by various NGOs and Indigenous Communities?
Whether USPTO’s decision to grant a patent to Basmati Rice violates the TRIPs Agreement?
Whether Ricetec Inc. is guilty of bio-piracy and violation of traditional knowledge belonging to indigenous communities of Southern-Asian countries?
ANALYSIS:
Rice is considered a staple food for South Asian Countries and has been a part of the culture since time immemorial. It is known worldwide that the long-grain aromatic rice known as ‘basmati’ has been produced widely in the Sub-Himalayan region. Ricetec originally got a patent grant for growing the rice crop. The company contented that its patent covered a novel form of basmati which was an improved form over its previous varieties. Concerning the usage of the geographical indication named ‘Basmati’, it was argued that the term is not generic to the Indian sub-continent and has adopted its generic way through usage in terminology like American Basmati. It further stated that ‘Basmati’ does not infer a geographical area and falls within the ambit of ‘public domain’. After a battle of three years, India constructed data and evidence to challenge the patent validity. Whereas, the USPTO issued the patent for three strains of hybrid basmati out of around 20 claims.
JUDGMENT:
Since the crop was grown all over South Asia than India; it was not a geographical indicator. After subsequent protests made by India and Pakistan, the name ‘basmati’ was ultimately disallowed to the patentholder by USPTO. Subsequently, in 1999, India enacted legislation called the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. It is administered as the first specific law to register and protect geographical indications. The crop basmati has been registered as a geographical indication. Consumers pay increasing attention to the geographical origin of products and care about specific characteristics present in the products they buy. GIs can thus be a key element in developing brands for qualitybound-to-origin products.
Prior to 1999, there was no specific legislation to regulate and protect the geographical indications. It was, however, in 1999 that India adopted the act after complying with Article 22 of the TRIPs Agreement. The Act protected the interest of producers, local communities, manufacturers and consumers from being fraudulently sold such goods and services to attain economic benefits.
Comentarios