In Part I, we discussed about the importance of basmati export
to earn the foreign exchange for the country and also the details
on the controversial patent offered to US firm RiceTec. In Part-II,
let us look at the implications of the RiceTec patent on our export
and also the required advancement in science and amendments in our
Patent law.
Implications on the Trade
The USPTO ruling struck down the use of the term `basmati' for the
RiceTec rice lines, allowing RiceTec to use the titles, bas-867, rt-1117
and rt-1121 for them. This development is branded as a victory for
India but we may well have lost the marketing battle. Their rice lines
might be superior in some characters and in marketing, use of such
tactics is generally allowed. According to the President of the forum
for biotechnology and food security, Devinder Sharma, the abstract
associated with the ruling allows the company to go to the market
claiming that their rice lines are superior to basmati. Thus, we may
have lost the monopoly over basmati and it has now more or less become
a generic name.
If Texmati is marketed as a brand superior to Basmati, it goes without
saying that the latter's market could be hit. Clearly, then, it is
western ingenuity and aggression versus Indian diffidence and lack
of enterprise. The officials of the Agriculture and Allied Products
Export Promotion Authority (APEDA), which successfully challenged
the US company RiceTec's patent claims to ward off a major threat
to Basmati rice exports from India, said that India's commercial interests
continue to be safe and unaffected by the order. They said the US
patent office has vindicated India's objections to the "wide-scoped"
patent granted to RiceTec in 1997. Export of Basmati rice from India
to the US has increased substantially since 1997 when the patent was
first granted.
The implications of the order could be that RiceTec can sell the
rice varieties developed by it in the US market, but it cannot challenge
sale of Basmati rice in that market as an infringement of its patent.
To this extent, basmati export to US is safeguarded. However, if RiceTec
is allowed to claim that the new hybrid variety is superior to the
basmati from India, it could have implications. Ricetech has been
marketing its rice under the trade name of "Texmati" and
"Jasmati" in the US and European market.
More than the technology, RiceTec can now say 'superior to basmati
rice'. All we can
say perhaps now is genuine basmati from India/Pakistan! While there
is no great threat from the American knock-offs to the export of the
original Indian basmati strains, it is evident that the Indian industry
has to shape up before shipping out. For instance, the yield of the
original basmati is very low as little as 1 - 1.5 tonnes per hectare
whereas the American hybrids yield thrice as much. The processing,
drying and milling of Indian basmati is also very specialised and
delicate to avoid breaking the grain. All this should make the grain
even more exclusive. This is where marketing skill and advertising
dollars come in. The Americans will hype their grain saying it is
stronger and does not break easily, presenting it as a virtue.
Secondly while we can export to many other countries, RiceTec could
say certain varieties of basmati fall into their patent and sue exporters
from India. US companies have done this before, the most famous being
the Enola Bean patent infringement on a bean grown in Mexico. Calmati
is the newest among the hybrid rice grains set to enter American store
shelves where other basmati knock-offs such as Texmati, Jasmati and
Kasmati are jostling for space. While the latter three are products
of the Texas-based Ricetec corporation, Calmati is being marketed
by the California Basmati Company, and is described as a "true
basmati-type aromatic long grain with cooking qualities that approach
those of the best imported Indian basmatis." Developed by the
California Rice Experiment Station and released to growers in 1999,
Calmati appears to be a marvel of American marketing mantras.
In introducing the grain, the California Basmati Company rhapsodises
that "The cold, clear snowmelt from the Sierras and the Mediterranean
climate in the northern California rice growing areas very much resemble
the growing conditions in northern India where basmati rice originated.
The result is a unique aromatic long grain that has the attributes
of Indian basmati and the quality and purity that come from rice grown
in California." The company reportedly raised a limited amount
of Calmati in the 2000 crop year and is selling it selectively.
The US is a big market for India about 40,000 tonnes of basmati is
exported per year to the US. Some argue that there is a lot of over-reaction.
They point out that Texmati is being sold in the US for the past 20
years yet it has no't captured the market. Even after RiceTec's 1997
patent, our exports to the US have doubled. Whatever be the history,
the hard thing for India now is to differentiate 'true' basmati from
all the variants floating around and ensuring legal protection for
this differentiation so that our trade interests are not compromised.
Queen's Battle
in Other Countries
India may claim to have won a major legal battle against the Texas(US)-based
RiceTec on the issue of patenting the queen of rice, basmati, but
the queen still faces 40 other cases in about 25 countries. These
cases range from exclusive claim over the basmati trademark to infringement
on the geographical indication of the aromatic rice, according to
the Agricultural & Processed Food Export Development Authority.
The countries include Brazil, Chile, Greece, Britain, South Africa,
Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Spain, Turkey Kuwait and Taiwan, officials
of the Uinon commerce ministry-promoted authority said. The efforts
to fight the cases is being financed by the Basmati Development Fund
set up under the All India Rice Exporters' Association, which has
been collecting Rs 50 for every tonne of rice exported from India.
The government has also been getting the assistance of Trade Mark
Watch Agency that keeps track of any new trademark application for
basmati rice or its deceptive variations filed overseas.
APEDA chairman Anil Swarup said that even though the number of cases
were large, India has been able to win 15 cases it has fought in the
past in countries like Britain, Australia, France, Spain, Chile and
the UAE. In Spain, APEDA has been able to get the basmati trademark
registered as aromatic rice grown in the subcontinent, which will
bar its use for all products in the foods category. In Brazil, too,
the New Delhi-based authority was successful in getting an application
for the registration of basmati as a trademark for sweets and condiments
rejected. India has also won major victories against RiceTec in two
other countries -- Greece and Britain. The US food technology company
had filed for a registering 'Texmati', 'Kasmati' and 'Jasmati' as
trademarks in Greece, while in Britain, it had wanted to register
'Texmati' as a trademark. In both these countries, India was able
to get the food technology corporation's application rejected on the
ground that all these names were deceptively similar to basmati, which
is an aromatic rice grown in north India and some parts of Pakistan.
The APEDA official said that efforts were on to strengthen India's
case in other countries by classifying basmati varieties in terms
of geographical indication. The DNA string of eleven traditional basmati
varieties has been identified and codified as per their unique physical
properties, which will help the authorities to register them in the
geographical indication registry. According to Swarup, on the basis
of geographical indication we would be able to clearly define a geographical
area and claim exclusiveness of a variety on the basis of agro-climatic
conditions in that area. ....more
