GI for Tirupathi Laddu: Whose interests protected?

In Depth

GI for Tirupathi Laddu: Whose interests protected?

Madabhushi Sridhar | November 2009

An insight into the ongoing controversy regarding securing GI mark for the divine offering of the revered Balaji temple…

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) trustees of world’ richest temple on Tirumala Hills secured Geographical Indication (GI) Registration for sacred Laddu Prasadam, from Indian Patent Office, Chennai, recently, raising many eyebrows. It is criticised as its latest manifestation of brazen commercialisation of divine abode. Ironically, sacred Tirupathi Laddu now joins the company of goods like Darjeeling Tea, Goa Feni, and Champagne wine etc. What hurts devotees is the way Prasadam is reduced to commercial product.

LADDU AS ‘GOODS”

Section 11(2) of GI Act states goods with inherent natural and human factors could be registered as GI. It is not acceptable to consider Tirupathi Laddu Prasadam as mere tasty food stuff. Laddu is not mere material ball of sweet unique to town called Tirupathi so that GI could be secured. For millions of devotees Sri Vari Laddu is sacred ‘prasadam’, after offered to deity of Sri Venkateswara in the sanctum sanctorum. Laddus, Vadas and several other food items are made for Naivedyam (the offering) amidst sacred sounds of mantras and bells. TTD in its application stated that the ‘laddu gets its reputation not from its taste alone but from its sanctity’. In fact it is other way round, it gets its reputation only from its sanctity and not from its taste. Sanctity is the unique feature of Laddu, more than its taste. Ardent devotees opine that even the unique taste is because it was offered to God.

There are two substantial points to oppose this GI. Tirupati Laddu stands much above the mundane material level, because of the faith the devotees repose in. Calling it a thing is bringing it down from its high pedestal. Second point is: It is also not justified to call it Geographical Indication. Which geography this laddu is indicating? It is not Tirupathi, because nowhere in Tirupathi town these laddus are made except in temple. Strictly speaking not even the temple on Tirumala, but just the kitchen in the temple. An IPR which is meant for a wider geographical area cannot be confined to a very small portion of a temple.

Sadly, for TTD which made 10 million dollars in 2007 out of sale of Laddus, as per wikipedia report, ‘laddu’ is just a commercial food article. TTD’s application published in Geographical Indication Journal No. 28 at page 38 states that cost of small Laddu is Rs.25 and big laddu, Rs.100. Around 70,000 pilgrims visit Tirumala everyday and almost every one purchases laddu, leading to a turnover of Rs. 17 to 70 lakh a day.

The GI to Tirupathi Laddu opened flood gates for applications from rich temples such as Sabarimalai of Ayyappa, for ‘aravana payasam’ (‘payasam’ is rise-based sweet porridge) and ‘appam’, ookambika Temple for its ‘tirumadhuram’, or Sri Krishna Temple of Alleppey for their Palapayasam (milk made sweet porridge with ghee and rice) etc under false impression that would fetch them huge profits.

HOW DOES IT ENFORCE THE RIGHT?

Literally, ‘Tirupathi’ is a Tamil word meaning Husband of Lakshmi (Thiru = Shree = Lakshmi, Pathi = Husband), i.e. Lord Vishnu. Can TTD stop any Vishnutemple offering and selling Laddus? It can only stop any national or multinational marketing company selling Laddu as Tirupathi Laddu, which threat is not foreseen at all. In fact, it is not Tirpuathi Laddu but Tirumala Laddu (made inside temple), because laddu is not made in Tirupathi. Tirumala means the ‘Shree Hills’. It cannot also stop anybody making laddus, elsewhere and sell them as Tirumala Laddus after offering to Sri Venkateswara in local temple. Strangely, the other unique prasadam of Tirumala ‘Vada’ is not thought fit to secure GI. Most of the Balaji temples in India and abroad make and sell laddu and vada prasadam. Then what is protected? Section 21(1) (b) of GI Act explained the rights arising out of GI Act gives to the authorised user thereof the exclusive right to the use of the geographical indication in relation to the goods in respect of which the geographical indication is registered. When TTD is the sole producer and sole seller already excluding all others, such a protection is redundant. Section 9(d) of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 says – A Geographical Indication which comprises or contains any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India shall not be registered. Whether this statutory mandate ignored before granting GI to Tirupathi Laddu? Calling sacred Prasadam as commercial Goods will hurt the sentiments of millions of devotees of Balaji.

What is GI?

The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 has been made to secure the interests of producers of unique products drawing specific quality from that particular region, and to protect consumers from deception. The term GI refers to any indication that identifies goods as originating from a particular place, where a given quality, reputation or particular characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Examples:
Columbian Coffee, Darjeeling tea, Champagne wine and Bordeaux cheese. Registered GI with distinctive signs helps artisans, weavers and others from onslaught of corporate competition using name of geographical origin. GI secures consumers from confusion of counterfeits and artisans from undue competition. Unique quality arising out of that place coupled with skill of artisans fetches the premium price. While patents and copyrights belong to individuals, the GI is a collective right of community protected either by their group or state, helping art and artisans to survive. In collective right the knowledge or intellect is in public domain, and rights are held in perpetuity.

WHOSE INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED?

Is it the case of TTD that it intends to protect interests of skilled cooks by allowing a share in commercial income by protecting them from being counterfeited by traders? No. All those Laddu makers are regular workers of the TTD, who never get any share in profits out of selling Laddus. TTD is sole producer and sole beneficiary. Nowhere in the world duplicate Tirupathi laddus are made or sold. By spending lakhs of rupees to get GI, what the TTD has achieved?

It is high time that the devotees pray Lord Venkateswara that no IPR expert law firm would advise, for a fat fee of course, to register Copyright in the design of cloths, jewellery, crown or the very divine beautiful form of Lord’s deity, or trade mark for its logo with Anandanilaya Vimanam, and so on and so forth. Whether the riches being made by TTD by selling copyrighted books, calendars, diaries, photos, videos, CDs and DVDs like Suprabhatam and Brahmotsavam, not enough? Is TTD a trustee or trader?