Protection of traditional art forms under geographical indications law: a case study of Madhubani and Sujini art forms of Bihar, India is a paper published in 2021 [Akanksha Jumde, Nishant Kumar, Protection of traditional art forms under geographical indications law: a case study of Madhubani and Sujini art forms of Bihar, India, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (July 2021)]. The paper analyzes issues with the implementation of Geographical Indications (GI) law in India especially in light of the traditional handicraft sectors. Towards this, two ancient art forms from the state of Bihar were studied based on field visits and in-depth interviews of some relevant stakeholders.

The paper provides an overview of GI law in India such as the registration and enforcement process along with highlighting its importance and comparison with other forms of IP. Handicrafts as an industry has a huge significance in India in terms of employment generation as well as revenue from exports. GI law has emerged as the best form of protection to traditional knowledge. Consequently, the registration of Sujini and Madhubani GIs have not only uplifted the life of rural women of Bihar but also helped in the popularization of the art form globally.

The paper highlights how despite the rapid growth in GI registrations for handicrafts, there still exists a gap in the existing literature on GI law in this regard. There has been increasing instances of counterfeiting and misappropriation in the manufacturing and sale of products as the law is limited to penalizing only improper use of the GI label and not the manufacturing process as such. This is also a result of lack of post-registration quality control and monitoring provision. Further, applicants are subjected to arduous registration procedures and anomalous ‘authorized user’ requirement, thereby making the process further challenging. Moreover, with cases of artists migrating to larger markets, the localization requirement for use of GI label is put into question. Due to the lack of sufficient government support in promotion and marketing post-registration, it becomes challenging for artists to survive on the art form as a complete source of livelihood.

The paper emphasizes that these issues arise as GI law is extremely trader-centric and to address the same, promoting awareness through association about the social and cultural significance of the products is important. Besides, solutions for statutory and procedural issues can be found in laws of other countries, and with governmental support and certain practical steps by proprietors, GIs can be adequately protected and would yield better economic returns.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The 22^nd session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property, 2018 [1] acknowledged the existence of the gender gap in IP and emphasized the need to create gender equality by empowering women to innovate and create IPs. It aimed to include a gender-specific perspective in IP policies. The author believes that a gender-specific perspective in IP policies is not necessary but agrees with the Committee’s recommendation on the need to empower women to innovate and occupy a bigger share of the workforce in the development of technologies and businesses. 

The lack of awareness of the economic and social benefits of owning IP among women, lack of financial resources to pursue education or set up businesses, insufficient support to working women, contribute to the sparse contribution of women in strengthening the IP ecosystem.

The author opines that the government can undertake effective schemes and initiatives to empower women in creating IP. The government actively advertising and promoting initiatives to increase the participation of women in the workforce and sectors of innovation will automatically raise awareness, empower women and reduce the gender gap.

Women from indigenous / tribal communities in some parts of the world have collaborated with their governments to meet the UN sustainable development goals and, in the process, have preserved traditional knowledge. In India, too, women from indigenous / tribal communities can also be encouraged to protect their traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, geographical indications and trade secrets. It would help them not only economically but also socially and strengthen the IP regime.

The author’s opinion on not having gender-specific IP laws but to simply empower women to innovate and participate in the workforce stems from the belief that implementation of laws is a problem area and not the laws themselves. Measures to empower women are the need of the hour. Some measures that can be undertaken are – promote women’s involvement in STEM fields by providing scholarships or crash courses; incorporating initiatives to the existing women empowerment schemes of education; awareness programs and mentorship can be provided by women inventors or other women in the IP field; concessions and benefits similar to those offered to MSMEs in terms of financial assistance and loan moratoriums can be further relaxed for women centric businesses.

It is the author’s opinion that the government can address barriers faced by women by actively providing solutions to implement the laws rather than merely implementing more laws. This will motivate more women to innovate and automatically address gender-gap issues.

[1] World Intellectual Property Organisation, “Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) 22^nd Session”, Pg. 6-7, available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_22/cdip_22_summary.pdf.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The once defunct area of ​​music copyright law is seeing a surge of fees stemming from licensing arrangements for songs that are unaffordable by smaller businesses and up-and-coming artists. Latest music is more similar than different, and artists are using similar beats, samples and rhythms to meet the demand. When such basic samples are used to back copyright claims, individual artists are hesitant to experiment and innovate music. The author believes that such licensing arrangements with over-arching fees are detrimental to the growth of smaller/individual artists.

Nowadays, abstract qualities of rhythm, tempo, and the overall feel of a song are being used to chase down songs for simply ‘feeling’ like a previous song. In all genres, artists release new music with the same question in mind: Will this song throw me down the rabbit hole of exorbitant licensing arrangements?

Large companies with long catalogs of musical compositions are able to set disproportionate licensing fees and exhaust artists in the name of such abstract properties and sample packs. The most affected are independent creators, who are more often under-equipped to partner with these entertainment giants. For example, an upcoming musician who does a cover of a hit song will be slammed with high fees if he wants to share his cover publicly. Even coming up with their own compositions doesn’t help as sometimes big labels use very basic beats to justify their lawsuit against them and claim unreasonably excessive damages in a private settlement. Thus, smaller artists are prevented from innovating. Instead of promoting the creation of more music, copyright law in this context sometimes contribute to removing competition by giving larger profits to major records, who in turn use those advantages to out-compete smaller labels. This results in less incentive to make music as this becomes one of the factors which makes it difficult to market oneself and become profitable.

Simply put, artists who “win” the lottery by signing a license agreement with a major distributor are able to make huge gains over independent artists who do not have as much access to the public.

Artists are limited by what their record companies can afford while people other than the artists make financial decisions. Sometimes producers have to replace or discard their music because they can’t afford to clear the samples they want. Thus, the author is of the firm view that licensing agreements with major record companies can often leave vulnerable artists at a tightrope without the possibility of breaking into the market by paying such high licensing fees.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Culture plays an important role in the development of a country and a country as diverse as India is symbolized by the plurality of its culture. It has to be ensured that the cultural works are adequately protected and that there exist no overlapping boundaries between not for-profit, educational, and commercial exploitation and distribution of such work. The author believes that open licensing would adequately ensure the promotion of Intellectual Property (IP) in cultural heritage and enable the effective usage of the said cultural work in question and at the same time, ensure adequate protection to the creator of the said work.

Open Licensing empowers new creativity, increases educational opportunities, preserves space for non-commercial culture and promotes inclusion and access to cultural works. This, it does by ensuring that the creators are duly credited for their work; commissioning of the said work as well as ensuring that such works are protected from being destructed and by preventing the cultural expressions from being exhibited in ways that disparage the community.

Further, open licensing ensures that the right to livelihood of such creators is adequately protected, in the sense that they receive economic benefits for the work they produce. To this end, the Indian Government, under the aegis of Ministry of Culture has introduced various schemes, such as the “Scheme of Financial Assistance for Promotion of Art and Culture”, among others [1]. The schemes aim at supporting and strengthening the efforts of various stakeholders vis-à-vis, wider recognition and acceptance, dissemination, preservation and promotion of the rich, diverse and vast Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of India, including its recognition by the UNESCO. In this regard, open licensing enhances financial rewards to the creators.

Moreover, these schemes aim at preserving, supporting and safeguarding the various expressions of ICH by providing training support to the students and artists in these areas, providing support to practitioners through workshops, performance documentation and database creation through various media. To this end, the schemes aim at addressing areas critical for the survival and propagation of various ICH forms.

In the absence of open licensing, it would be easier for large corporations to exploit the creator of such rights without adequately incentivizing them. The author, thus, believes that these incentives along with the current copyright regime facilitates the promotion of IP in cultural heritage. Open licensing treats cultural production as a public endeavour for the benefit of all and the same has to be positively encouraged.

[1] Ministry of Culture, Schemes, available at https://www.indiaculture.nic.in/schemes .

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The High Court of Delhi released a draft of the proposed “Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021” on October 8, 2021, for stakeholder consultation. The members of the Bar have been requested to submit their comments/suggestions within two weeks through an email. The draft Rules lay down the practice and procedure to be followed for matters listed before the recently created Intellectual Property Division (“IPD”) of the Delhi High Court.

The IPD will adjudicate upon matters pertaining to all forms of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) including statutory claims as well as enforcement of common law remedies like passing off, unfair competition, disparagement, tortious activities, etc. The IPD will deal with all original, appellate and other proceedings related to IPR [including all proceedings which were hitherto maintainable before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”)], except matters that are dealt with by a Division Bench. The rules also provide the categories, nomenclature and procedure for different proceedings that can be filed before the IPD.

As per the rules, in all matters filed before the IPD, an advance copy shall be served on the address of service and via email upon the Respondents and their counsels, at least forty eight hours in advance and mentioning the likely date of listing. Towards expeditious disposal, no further notice would be issued and the matter may be heard and disposed of on the first day of listing.

Notably, the rules also provide that in the matters listed before the IPD, intervention by third parties may be permitted suo moto or upon an application by any person. The IPD may refuse or accept such application after hearing the parties concerned.

The rules also provide for the consolidation of multiple proceedings relating to the same or related IPR, irrespective of whether the said proceedings are between the same parties or not, subject to the discretion of IPD.

Further, the rules also provide for summary adjudication without the requirement of filing a specific application seeking summary judgement, in cases not related to patents. The rules lay down separate categories based on which summary adjudication maybe considered in patent cases. The IPD has also been empowered to maintain a panel of experts and appoint two law researchers for assistance with techno-legal aspects pertaining to IPR.

The Draft Rules can be accessed here – https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/Upload/PublicNotices/PublicNotice_5J4GUGI051K.PDF

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP