The Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), a think tank in South Asia, on Saturday urged the Bangladesh High Commission in India to file a case with the Indian court to get the Geographical Indication (GI) right of Tangail sari.
The CPD also asked for a 'multidisciplinary task force' to deal with the matter of intellectual property rights of Bangladesh in the interest of local producers and the economy during the period of its LDC graduation.
Following India's recent registration of Tangail sari as its GI (Tangail Sari of Bengal), the CPD made the call at a press conference titled "On Tangail Saree-GI India, What Happened and What Can be Done".
CPD distinguished fellow Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya presented a paper which revealed that apart from Tangail sari, India has also completed the registration procedure for Bangladeshi GI- 'Dhakai Muslin' as 'Bengal Muslin'.
Dr Debapriya urged the government to file a case with the Indian court through the Bangladeshi High Commission in Delhi and the Deputy High Commission in Kolkata to begin the legal procedure.
It is now the most important task for the government to be done to file a case in India following the Indian law, he said.
Mr Debapriya said there are several inconsistencies in India's GI application for Tangail sari.
He also said as per Indian claim that the weavers within Hindu community from Tangail who migrated to various parts of West Bengal during the partition in 1947 and they are only actively involved in its production is not true.
Weavers within both Hindu and Muslim communities in the Tangail region have historically contributed to making the saris. Muslims played a pivotal role, he added.
He criticised the GI recognition process in India, pointing out that it encompasses factors such as geographical origin, quality, and safety, and asserted that half-truth or deceptive information was used to obtain GI status for Tangail sari in India.
The CPD distinguished fellow called upon Bangladesh to challenge this decision in the Indian court within the stipulated three-month objection period, leveraging factual inconsistencies to strengthen its case.
Following India's GI recognition of Tangail sari, the government departments concerned were prompted into action, with the Tangail district administration swiftly applying for GI status for the sari.
However, Mr Debapriya criticised the haste in this process, questioning why relevant departments had not taken action earlier despite the GI application being filed by India in 2020.
He cautioned against rushed decisions, emphasising the need for careful consideration to avoid errors.
Dr Debapriya also showed the importance of cautious approach regarding GI protection for similar products shared between Bangladesh and India.
He explained the significance of adhering to international laws such as the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement, the Lisbon Agreement, and the WTO's TRIPS Agreement to ensure fair protection of intellectual property rights.
He said the TRIPS Agreement's Part II, Section 3, addresses "geographical indications.
"Article 22.2 of it mandates members to establish legal measures against false origin claims and unfair competition, while Article 22.3 focuses on the registration of trademarks that mislead about the true origin," he said.
He said Article 22.4 of TRIPS also prohibits the deceptive use of geographical indications.
He said additionally, the 1(2) and 10 articles of Paris Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of the Madrid Agreement of 1891 emphasise protection against false or deceptive indications of source.
The Lisbon Agreement of 1958 defines "appellation of origin" in its article 2, emphasising the association of a product's reputation with its originating country or region, he said.
Economist Debapriya also said coincidentally both India and Bangladesh are yet to be signatories of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration (1958).
CPD distinguished fellow economist Prof Mustafizur Rahman said: "In the WTO, countries get not what they deserve, but what they negotiate."
He put high emphasis on the legal procedure and negotiation by the industry and foreign ministry in this regard.
He said Bangladesh could take legal action against India to safeguard its GIs, such as Tangail sari, under various international agreements.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
