Monsanto Vs. Greenpeace in the Delhi High Court

Some news today about Mahyco’s (Monsanto’s Indian partner) suit in the Delhi High Court challenging the Central Information Commission’s November 2007 order which required the Department of Biotechnology to disclose information pertaining to Bt Brinjal.

The Maharashtra State Information Commission had previously denied this request on the ground that it “would affect the competitive position of a third party” (Sec. 8 ) – in this case Monsanto. The CIC had overruled this decision holding that notwithstanding the existence of such a ground of withholding of information, where public interest lay in the disclosure of information, such information could not be denied. The Delhi High Court passed an interim order in December 2007 staying the order till the next hearing of the case on April 23.

More details in this Business Standard article.

Greenpeace has obtained similar data on Monsanto’s genetically modified insect resistant maize in Europe through a court order. The Monsanto data, when independently evaluated, had given rise to conclusions that were contradictory to Monsanto’s observations.

Armed with the new data, the international NGO had launched a campaign, though not with much success, to see that the marketing approval given to the particular maize variety (MON 863) in Europe was withdrawn. Greenpeace is looking at the possibilities of a similar review of the data generated by Mahyco for its brinjal variety..

What’s startling about this suit is that Mahyco’s argument that in disclosing this information, India is violating our TRIPs data protection obligations. This is the Novartis case all over again. The Delhi High Court is notoriously more narrow-minded with patent suits and I hope this isn’t a strategy to arrive at data protection by other means.

Geographical Indications for folk arts

Todays news reports that the Governments of UP and Rajasthan are considering obtaining GI certification for some of their crafts.
The Hindu carries this article in today edition about Rajasthan’s efforts to obtain GI registration for two ‘area-specific handloom products named after the townships of Sanganer and Bagru’. The move is aimed at “protect(ing) their products from fakes and power-loom clothing” and also to “help give an exclusive identity”.
And then the Business Standard today carries an article about the UP Government seeking ” exclusive rights over five of its most famous products” which happen to be “brassware of Moradabad, mango of Malihabad, glassware of Ferozabad, leather of Kanpur and chikankari products.”

Referring to the importance of branding the traditional crafts of the state, Jacob Thomas, principal secretary, UP Small Scale Industry and Export Promotion, said that these crafts are unmatched anywhere in the world, but require a strong marketing support.

I have written here about how out of the various way to promote cultural industries and foster dying traditions, GI protection is possibly the most facile option. Beginning with the Pochampally GI, state governments have been tripping over each other on their way to the GI registration office, without giving any serious thought to whether GIs actually promote these arts. GI’s are only as effective as the money you have available to throw at infringements. The kind of money required for infringement actions is enormous, and would benefit the community greatly if it were employed directly in their aid instead of chasing after copycats. (There are figures for the Darjeeling Tea Board’s expenses in my article linked above).