Secular Citizen is truly baffled by the recent news reports of rampant commercialisation of object of reverence and inflated faith trading in the country. I remember to have read a report in a leading news daily that, about Rs. 25,000 crores have been spent every year in the temples situated in ‘Kerala alone’ for the extravaganza associated with festival occassions. No need to say that the figure will have to be multiplied several times if a total account of money flow in these divine festival bonanzas in the whole country is to be arrived at. In fact, I wondered why the Government did not find a source of revenue in taxing the income generated by temples, churches, mosques etc. While Trademark on the picture of attukal deity proclaims the fact of Trade in Temples, the reports regarding the likelihood of Offficial GI tag on Tiruppathi Laddu is exemplary of strategic commercialisation of Temple Offerings (Prasadams), passed off as commodity (goods).
It is worth mentioning here that the legislation under which Tiruppathi temple trust sought protection for Tiruppathi laddu is an Act meant for protecting goods or commodities, viz. ”The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999″. According to the GI Act, “Goods” include agricultural goods, natural goods, handicraft or industrial goods. Obviously, Tiruppathi Laddu cannot be classified as one among agricultural goods, natural goods or handicraft, leaving an option to schedule it under industrial goods. But it is quite hard to believe that temple offerings are equivalent to manufactured goods or commercially significant commodities.
GI is supposed to act as an appellation or indicator of the geographical origin of the “product”. It implies that everyone from TIRUPPATI locality shall have the right to use GI on “Tiruppati Laddu” (Incase it is conferred the status of commodity), if the product of the claimant hailing from TIRUPPATHI could establish the same delicacy and features attributable to the laddu “manufactured” by the temple trust. It is imperative whether the trust would be Happy to accept all those “claimants” as members of trust without demanding any license fee. Then we should appreciate the greatness of the temple trust in seeking the status of “official laddu makers”. Further, Secular Citizen is curious to know the logic in the message being conveyed by the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trdemarks (and GI).
Tiruppathi temple trust might have applied for GI under a false impression that they would get a “monoply” on “tiruppati laddu”. “monopoly” is an alien to “democracy”. However “exclusive rights” for the “products of creative mind” are being allowed as Intellectual Property Rights with reasonable restrictions, only because it is essential for industrial growth. In that sense it is to be doubted whether Geographical Indications belong to the category of Intellectual Property Rights in the strict sense, as “Geographical Indications” are neither inventions/innovations nor products of creative mind.
When Section 295 (Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class) of Indian Penal Code says “Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowldge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction,damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”, the decision of bombay high court as reported by Indian Express, points to the fact that this section of IPC has no effect on curbing acts of commercial expolitation of object of worship.
The following affirmations in the decision by Bombay High Court may be read along with article 25 and article 26 of Indian Constitution to understand the serious prejudice to the secular harmony of the country, if religious symbols are allowed for private appropriation
1) Ganesh Beedi Works, Mysore, cannot be punished under section 295 of the Indian Penal Code for commercial use of the deity.
2) Justice Parkar observes that use of the deity’s pictures on the pouches does not constitute an offence because there is no intention to insult a place of worship, neither has the company damaged/defiled an object of religious worship.
3) The company has been manufacturing beedis since the year 1932, and their Ganesh trademark was registered since 1942 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.
4) Therefore, the judge observed, since the Ganesh trademark is being used for the last six decades without objections, a criminal complaint at this stage cannot be entertained. Moreover, the complainant can approach the registrar under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, if he still has any grievance.
5) According to the complainant, the beedi pouches are likely to be thrown on public streets, which will then be trampled upon by passersby. However, the judge observes that even if the pouches are thrown on the street, it does not constitute deliberate defilement of the picture of Lord Ganesha.
6) The beedi label was also challenged by a Hindu citizen in Madras High Court in 1987. He stated that an object of reverence should not be allowed as a commercial trademark. But the Madras High Court had also not entertained the objection.
7) Justice Parkar has stated that even if one assumes commercial exploitation of the object of worship, it does not bring the case within the four corners of IPC.
It leaves the following questions on serious prejudice to religious freedom, faith and belief
a) Is it that the Trade mark registry Officials have no intelligence to understand the wisdom of law makers in inserting clause (b) in section 9 (2) of Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Section 9(2)(b) A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India
b) Is it not necessary that all those trade marks granted by TM registry and susceptible to religious faiths be cancelled in greater public interest and with reference to article 25 and article 26 of Indian Constitution.
c) Would the appropriation of a COMMON (MONOPOLY in abstract) as a TRADE Symbol would prevent its misuse or Does it increases the vulnerability to dangerous practices of Trading (especially when it relates to faith and religion)
d) Would the Trade Mark Registry be capable of to deny registration to a moderately modified form of a religious symbol appearing in trade mark register if it is sufficiently justified by the lawyers as distinctive and non-deceptive, while such symbol can spur religious issues at a later stage. Would the worshippers (who hails the initiatives and precedence created by attukal temple trust) accept it as genuine if the second appropriation is done by a foreigner ?
e) Above all, could any body predict the consequences and damages to communal harmony if such a religious symbol appropriated as a trademark happens to appear in such a place or in such a product that is not apt.
f) What would be aftermaths of such an occurrence as above and the owner of trademark happens to be from another religion ? Unfortunately, there are no provisions in Indian Penal Code for the unethical commercial exploitation of object of worship, as the court says
In abstract, Trademark on the deity taken by the Attukal Temple trust and the GI protection sought for “Tiruppathi laddu” passes a message that the “places of worship” are “business outfits” or “origin of trade and commerce”.
Interestingly, the judgment of Bombay High court points out that the aggrieved person should have preferred a request for cancellation of TM. But it is shocking to observe that Section 57 of TM Act mandates the applicant to go through a number of procedures after paying Rs. 3000 (and Form TM - 26), even when protection of “public interest” (and “not commercial interest”) is urged.
Should the Public pay the penalty for the mistakes committed by the Trade Mark Registry and GI Registry in understanding the relevant provisions of the respective legislations in the correct sense ?
The only solution is a “BIG NO” to private appropriation of religious symbols.
secularcitizen Legislative Intent faith trading, GI, Indian Penal code, IPC, temple offerings, tiruppathi laddu, worship