Skip to main content

Biopiracy of Traditional Knowledge by Mayurakshi Sarkar

 Biopiracy of Traditional Knowledge

Traditional knowledge (TK) is knowledge system that is held by the indigenous people, often relating to their surrounding natural environment. When traditional knowledge is used without permission by the researchers, or exploit the cultures they're drawing from – it's called biopiracy. Relationship of patent laws with the traditional knowledge is truly opening a can filled with worms. It is not because of the biopiracy debates but due to genetically modified organisms and "patents on life" debates as well.

Turmeric, a well-known home remedy in Indian houses since ages had been claimed for registration under Patent laws of U.S. It is a tropical herb grown in the east India and has been used as a medicine, food ingredient, a dye, etc. It is also being used as blood purifier, anti-parasitic, healing wounds, treating skin infections, etc. The product is used as an essential ingredient in Indian kitchens in cooking dishes. It is also used as an essential ingredient in cooking many Indian dishes.

However, in 1995, two India based researchers, Suman K. Das and Hari Har P. Cohlyin University of Mississippi Medical Centre claimed patent. They contended that they had discovered turmeric's healing property and to our surprise, they were granted patent over the same in March, 1995. However, Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) objected the patent granted. It provided evidences to the USPTO about the prior use of turmeric and documented evidences of the prior art.

Instead of the fact that the use of turmeric in Indian houses is a well-known fact, it was very difficult to find any documented information on the use of turmeric for wound healing. After an extensive research, 32 references were located in different languages namely Sanskrit, Urdu and Hindi. USPTO realised their mistake and revoked the patent, stating that the claims made in the patent were obvious and anticipated, and agreeing that the use of turmeric was an old art of healing wounds.

Similarly, the Neem tree (AzadirachtaIndica), a large tropical evergreen which can grow up to 30 meters tall and 2.5 meters in girth. A part of the tree is the seed which is covered by a greenish yellow or yellow cover. The origin of the tree is unknown, however, in India, the tree spreads widely. It is estimated that the subcontinent contains approx. 18 million trees. The tree is useful in many areas such as, dental hygiene, contraception, pesticides, medicines, etc.

The Neem tree has been used by Indian farmers as natural pesticide and it has also been researched by the Indian scientists. However, a western entomologist, Heinrich Schmutterer, in 1959 witnessed locused plague all over the Sudan and Neem trees were the only ones that survived the onslaught. He immediately started researching about the Neem tree. He found out many pesticidal qualities of the tree. However, it has been well-known fact among Indian farmers that the seeds of the tree and to a lesser extent leaves contains active substance azadirachtin. 

Traditionally patents have applied exclusively to inventions, granted as a reward for creativity and to support advancement. Naturally happening substances similar to DNA, were excluded from such laws. At that point, in 1980, Ananda Mohan Chakraborty, a scientist working for General Electric, filed an application for a patent on a bacterium that he had altered genetically with the goal that it could devour oil.

The patent and trademark office dismissed Chakraborty's application on the ground that the bacterium was a product of nature. Chakraborty sued, contending that, by modifying the life form, it was his inventiveness that made the bacterium important. The case ended up before the Supreme Court, which by a vote of five to four decided for the specialist. "The fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for the purpose of patent law," the Court wrote. Chakraborty's creation turned into the first living thing to get a patent.

Conclusion

Recently, in India, a private bill has been presented, which after passage will be known as the Protection of Indian Traditional Knowledge Act 2016. The bill includes the characteristics of traditional knowledge and what it incorporates, and makes the Central and State Governments the custodians of all the traditional Knowledge in India. The turmeric battle, more commonly known as 'haldighatikiladai' casts a light on the urgent need to protect Traditional Knowledge, the inadequacy of the laws surrounding its protection
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more