Facts: 2 Indians went to the USA and developed a turmeric based medicine. They claimed patent on 3 properties of turmeric- healing, surgical wound healing and antiseptic. The patent was granted by the USPTO. It was challenged by India.

Held: Since, the patent granted exclusive rights to sell and distribute turmeric, it hampered the economy of India. Moreover, turmeric has been used for thousands of years for medical purposes by Indians as part of their traditional knowledge. It was proved by various ancient scriptures and a publication of 1953 by the Indian Medical Research Department. The patent on the anti-inflammatory applications of turmeric was revoked in 1997 on the ground of lack of novelty.

Facts: On September 2, 1997, an American company RiceTec Inc. was granted a patent on Basmati rice lines and grains by the USPTO. RiceTec had got patent mainly for three categories: growing rice plants with certain characteristics identical to Basmati, the grain produced by such plants, and the method of selecting the rice plant based on a starch index (SI) test devised by RiceTec Inc. Out of these three categories, India challenged only the claim on 'grain quality'.

Held: Ricetec has been finally granted varietal patents for three strains of superfine rice developed by the company, but it could not obtain patent for the generic and pseudo generic strains of basmati. In the ruling, the USPTO said that RiceTec's grain is equal or superior to good quality Basmati. This would help the company to label its strains as superior Basmati rice. The international community treated this as a blatant case of biopiracy that threatens the genetic material, biological resources and indigenous innovation of farmers around the world. Moreover, Basmati rice is known for the length of the grain and it's aroma which comes due to the alliuvial soil of the Deccan Plateau of India. Hence, it also becomes a part of geographcal indication.

Facts: The defendant has wrongfully used the geographical indications in the designation and/or naming of its business premises as 'DARJEELING LOUNGE'. He has wrongfully used the name 'DARJEELING' for the presentation and sale of goods which it sells in such lounge. H has wrongfully suggested that the goods which it sells at the said 'DARJEELING LOUNGE' originate in the said geographical area other than the true place of origin of such goods as are sold which are not originating in Darjeeling at all. He has wrongfully used the geographical indications and other registered rights of the plaintiff in a manner to mislead and continues to mislead all persons frequenting or using the facilities at its said Darjeeling Lounge as regards the geographical origin of the goods which were sold thereat. The use of the name 'DARJEELING' for the purpose of the said lounge and for all purposes connected therewith including the publicity thereof and the selling of goods thereat had constituted acts of unfair competition and/or passing off in respect of the registered geographical indications rights and other registered rights of the plaintiff.

Held: 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

Facts: The appellant filed for the registration of the trademark 'SIMLA'. The mark was rejected on the grounds that geographical indications cannot be registered as trademark as the GI Act. The appeal was filed challenging the said rejection.

Held: Simla was never a tobacco producing centre or likely to be so and there is no chance or occasion for any prejudice being caused to other traders or manufacturers. He also referred to the Trade Marks Journal published by the Government containing advertisements of various geographical names for acceptance: 'Sheemla' for agarbati, 'Gulmarg' for wire, 'Shalimar' for engineering goods 'Kalighat' for biddies were cited and referred. In all such cases it appears that the names prima facie are fanciful without geographical or ordinary signification and at this stage it will not be proper to depend on those marks without further material or evidence. The propositions of law in respect of geographical names have been referred to above and in view of the imprint of snow clad hills in outline in the trade mark 'Simla' the ordinary or geographical signification is obvious and patent even though it has no reference to the quality or place of origin of the goods as at present advised. Further, registration of such trade mark may hamper or embarrass the trade or traders in or around the locality in future as held by judicial authorities cited earlier in similar cases. Also 'Simla' is too prominent a city, the capital of Himachal Pradesh, well known in the country and abroad and in its ordinary or geographical significance it is inherently neither distinctive nor adapted to distinguish also nor capable of distinguishing the goods of the appellant as a particular trader from those of others. and is also hit by the provisions of Section 9.

Facts: In November 2017, West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited got the GI registered as 'Banglar Rasogolla'. An objection to the GI Registration was filed citing that the origin of this famous sweet was in the Jagannath Temple of Puri in Odisha. An application for removal of the registration of the GI status was filed in February, 2018. The GI Registry notified that Odisha got the GI registered as 'Odisha Rasagola'.

Held: It is very important to note that the GI Registry has not given registration to the term 'Rasogolla/ Rasagola.' It has specifically prefixed two words to the GI tag, one is 'Banglar' and the other one is 'Odisha', thereby, implying that 'Rasogolla/ Rasagola' is a generic word which can be used by anyone in their trade and business. Thus, so far as the law is concerned, neither of the states has got a monopoly on the word 'Rasogolla/ Rasagola'. So, it is free for anyone in the trade to continue selling the sweet as Rasogolla/ Rasagola or any other synonym. What is prohibited is the usage of the word 'Banglar Rasogolla' and 'Odisha Rasagola' by anyone other than the 'authorised user' under the law.