Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legislative Support for Agricultural Innovation in India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation

Abstract

The chapter looks at the role of intellectual property law in fostering agricultural innovation in India, particularly through patents and plant variety protection. Specifically, it surveys the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GIs Act). A detailed examination is undertaken of the protection of farmers varieties under the PPVFR Act and of genetic resources under that Act. The legislative scheme of the GIs Act is detailed and its application to rice cultivation. The role of geographical indications in agricultural innovation is considered, as well as their relationship to traditional knowledge. The role of the Seeds Acts and Indian Seeds policies in promoting agricultural innovation is examined as well as the impact of the Biological Diversity Act 2002.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    9827/DELNP/2007.

  2. 2.

    (IPAB) Order No. 146 of 2013.

  3. 3.

    2019 SCC OnLine SC 25.

  4. 4.

    Patents Act 1970, s.10(4)(d)(ii)(D).

  5. 5.

    Correspondence with the authors, 26 November 2018.

  6. 6.

    Reg. No 145.

  7. 7.

    Official Journal L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

  8. 8.

    See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-3440_en.htm, accessed 4 December 2019.

  9. 9.

    WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/7, 6 May 2002,

  10. 10.

    Ibid., para. 13.

References

  • Abdelgawad, W. (2012). The Bt Brinjal case: The first legal action against Monsanto and its Indian collaborators for biopiracy. Biotechnology Law Report, 31(2), 136–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • African Union. (2018). Continental strategy for Geographical Indications in Africa, 2018–2023. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: African Union Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, S., & Barone, M. (2005). Emerging issues for Geographical indication branding strategies. MATRIC Research Paper 05-MRP 9, January, Iowa State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, R. (2016). Historical context: Evolving international cooperation on crop genetic resources. In M. Halewood (Ed.), Challenges in taxonomy and law. Farmers’ crop varieties and Farmers’ rights (pp. 99–128). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arjun, K. M. (2013). Indian agriculture- status, importance and role in Indian economy. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology, 4(4), 343–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barjolle, D. (2016). Geographical Indications and protected designations of origin: Intellectual property tools for rural development objectives. In D. S. Gangjee (Ed.), Research handbook on intellectual property and Geographical Indications (pp. 440–462). Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. (2008). European food quality policy: the importance of geographical indications, organic certification and food quality insurance schemes in European countries. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. (2009). European food quality policy: the importance of geographical indications, organic certification and food quality insurance schemes in European countries. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10(1), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, G., et al. (2015). Linking protection of geographical indications to the environment: Evidence from the European Union olive-oil sector. Land Use Policy, 48, 94–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhalla, G. S., & Singh, G. (2001). Indian agriculture: Four decades of development. New Delhi, India: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhutani, S., & Kohli, K. (2012). Ten years of the biological diversity act. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(39), 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2001). Intellectual property aspects of traditional agricultural knowledge. In M. Blakeney & P. Drahos (Eds.), IP in biodiversity and agriculture: Regulating the biosphere (pp. 29–52). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2002). Intellectual property aspects of traditional agricultural knowledge. In R. E. Evenson, V. Santaniello, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Economic and social issues in agricultural biotechnology (pp. 43–60). Oxford, UK: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2009). Protection of traditional knowledge by Geographical indications. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 3, 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2016a). DNA patenting. In H. B. Singh, A. Jha, & C. Keswani (Eds.), Intellectual property issues in biotechnology. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2016b). The negotiations in WIPO for international conventions on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. In J. C. Lai & A. M. Dominicé (Eds.), Intellectual property and access to Im/material goods (pp. 227–256). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2017). Geographical Indications and environmental protection. Frontiers of Law in China, 12(2), 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2019). The protection of Geographical Indications. Law and practice (2nd ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. Krishnankutty, J., Raju, R. K., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2019). Agricultural innovation and the protection of traditional rice varieties: Kerala a case study. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems (in print).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M., et al. (2012). Extending the protection of Geographical Indications. Case studies in the protection of agricultural products in Africa. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. (1996). Whose knowledge, whose genes, whose rights? In S. B. Brush & D. Stabinsky (Eds.), Valuing indigenous knowledge: Indigenous peoples and intellectual property rights (pp. 1–24). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarti, A. K. (1973). The green revolution in India. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63(3), 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary, R. C. (2019). Geographical Indications in Indian Agriculture. In C. Roy (Ed.), The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture and Allied Sciences (pp. 241–271). Oakville, Canada: Apple Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C. M. (2015). Plant variety protection in developing countries. A tool for designing a sui generis plant protection system. An alternative to UPOV 1991, Bonn, APREBES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottier, T., & Panizzon, M. (2004). Legal perspectives on TK: the case for intellectual property protection. Journal of International Economic Law, 7(2), 371–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullet, P., et al. (2006). Intellectual property rights, plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge. In S. Biber-Klemm & T. Cottier (Eds.), Rights to plant genetic resources and TK: Basic issues and perspectives (pp. 112–154). London: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagne, T. W. (2010). Harnessing the development potential of geographical indications for traditional knowledge-based agricultural products. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 5(6), 441–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, A., et al. (2019). Farmers’ rights and privileges: Implication to farming community. In C. Roy (Ed.), The role of intellectual property rights in agriculture and allied sciences (pp. 193–218). Oakville, Canada: Apple Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dattawadkar, N., & Mohan, H. (2012). The status of geographical indications in India. A short review, India. Jaipur, India: Intellectual Property Division, Stellarix Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Diallo, A. B. (2017). Evaluation of the economic impact of geographical indications: Three case studies, Economics and Finance. Clermont-Ferrand, France: Université Clermont Auvergne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, D. R. (2000). How intellectual property could be a tool to protect TK. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 25(2), 253–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, D. R., & Laird, S. A. (1999). Innovative mechanisms for sharing benefits of biodiversity and related knowledge: Case studies on Geographical Indications and trademarks. Geneva, Switzerland: UNCTAD Biotrade Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (1994). Revision of the International Undertaking. Issues for consideration in stage II: access to plant genetic resources and Farmers’ Rights, FAO Doc., CPGR-Ex1/94/5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, M. (2003). India’s biological diversity act 2002: An act for the new millenium. Journal of Biosciences, 28(2), 145–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadwal, V. R. (2003). The Indian seed industry: Its history, current status and future. Current Science, 84(3), 399–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangjee, D. S. (2016). Genericide: the death of a Geographical indication? In D. S. Gangjee (Ed.), Research handbook on intellectual property and geographical indications (pp. 508–548). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerz, A., & Dupont, F. (2006). Comté cheese in France: Impact of a Geographical indication on rural development. In P. van de Kop, D. Sautier, & A. Gerz (Eds.), Origin-based products: Lessons for pro-poor market development (pp. 75–87). Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraud, G., & Amblard, C. (2003). What does traceability mean for beef meat consumer? Sciences des Aliments, 23(1), 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • GIs Registry, Intellectual Property India. (2011). Certificate no. 158, Journal no 40 available at http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/199. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.

  • Glowka, L. (1998). A guide to designing legal frameworks to determine access to genetic resources. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L. (2007). The demise and rebirth of plant variety protection: A comment on technological change and the design of plant variety protection regimes’. Chicago Kent Law Review, 82, 1619–1627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. E. (2003). Information, incentives and institutions in the Agri-food sector. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(3), 413–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. E., & Kerr, W. A. (2006). Consumer information, labelling and international trade in Agri-food products. Food Policy, 31(1), 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. E., et al. (2005). Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: Do consumers care? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(1), 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISAAA. (2019). Pocket K No. 35: Bt Brinjal in India, available at https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/35/default.asp. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.

  • Jagdish, J., Makanur, B., & Eraya. (2006, November 22–24). Sustainable value of Navara Rice in Medical and Aesthetic Aspects, Agricultural Communication and Sustainable Rural Development: From Information to Knowledge to Wisdom-Envisioning a Food Sovereign World in the Third Millennium, International seminar, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, M., & Smith, S. (2007). Technological change and the Design of Plant Variety Protection Regimes. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82, 1557–1615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jebaraj, P. (2011, August 10). NBA for action against BT brinjal biopiracy, The Hindu, available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nba-to-take-action-against-bt-brinjal-biopiracy/article2340768.ece

  • Kandavel, S. (2019, August 14). ‘Panchamirtham’ of Palani temple gets GI tag, The Hindu., available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/panchamirtham-of-palani-temple-gets-gi-tag/article29089343.ece. Accessed 6 Dece 2019.

  • KAU (Kerala Agricultural University). (2018). Wayanadan Nellinangal. Directory of farmers conserving traditional rice varieties. Kerala, India: Government of Kerala, Department of Agricultural Development and Farmers Welfare, KAU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochupillai, M. (2011). India’s plant variety protection law: Historical and implementation perspectives. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16(2), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. (2011). Bt brinjal in India a long way to go. GM Crops, 2(2), 92–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Srivastava, S. (2017). The legal status of geographical indications in India. Bioved, 28(1), 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. and Srivastava, S. (2019) in Roy, C. (Ed)., The role of intellectual property rights in agriculture and allied sciences (pp. 66–98). Oakville Apple: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees, M. (2003). Food authenticity and traceability. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N. P., et al. (2005). Impacts of strengthened intellectual property rights regimes on the plant breeding industry in developing countries: A synthesis of five case studies. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Genetic Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lushington, K. (2012). The registration of plant varieties by farmers in India: A status report review of agrarian studies. Review of Agrarian Studies, 2(1), 112–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E. (2000). Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCalman, P. (2001). Reaping what you sow: An empirical analysis of patent harmonization. Journal of International Economics, 55, 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J. A. (2001). Biodiversity and agricultural development: The crucial institutional issues. In D. R. Lee & C. B. Barrett (Eds.), Tradeoffs or synergies? Agricultural intensification, economic development and the environment (pp. 399–417). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengistie, G., & Blakeney, M. (2016). Geographical Indications in Africa. Opportunities, Experiences and Challenges’. European Intellectual Property Review, 38(5), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agriculture. (1988). New Seed Policy (Letter No.11–71/88-SD-1 dated September 16, 1988) available at http://plantquarantineindia.nic.in/PQISPub/html/seepol.htm. Accessed 4 Dec 2019.

  • Ministry of Agriculture (India). (2002). New Policy on Seed Development, Letter No.11–71/88-SD-1 dated September 16, 1988, available at http://plantquarantineindia.nic.in/pqispub/html/seepol.htm. Accessed 4 Dec 2019.

  • Moschini, G., Menapace, L., & Pick, D. (2008). Geographical indications and the provision of quality in agricultural markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(3), 794–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., & Banks, J. (2000). Quality, nature, and Embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography, 76(2), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutersbaugh, T., et al. (2005). Editorial. Certifying rural spaces: Quality certified products and rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(4), 381–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda, N. (2013). The protection of geographical indications in India: Issues and challenges. New Delhi, India: TERI Briefing Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor & Co. (2005). Geographical indications and the challenges for ACP countries. Brussels, Belgium: Agritrade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pai, Y., & Singla, T. (2016/2017). ‘vanity GIs’: India’s legislation on geographical indications and the missing regulatory framework. In I. Calboli & N. Wee Loon (Eds.), Geographical Indications at the crossroads of trade, Development and Culture (pp. 333–358). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pal, S., Tripp, R., & Louwaars, N. P. (2007). Intellectual property rights in plant breeding and biotechnology: Assessing impact on the Indian seed industry. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(3), 231–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panizzon, M., & Cottier, T. (2005). Traditional knowledge and geographical indications: Foundations, interests and negotiating positions. In E. Petersmann (Ed.), Developing countries in the Doha round: WTO decision-making procedures and WTO negotiations on trade in agricultural goods and services. Florence, Italy: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parayil, G. (1992). The green revolution in India: A case study of technological change. Technology and Culture, 33(4), 737–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • PPVFRA (Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority). (2018). Compendium of registered varieties under PPV&FR Act, 2001. New Delhi, India: Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rana & Co. (2018). India: Madhya Pradesh loses GI Tag, fails to join Basmati League, available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=01a99c4e-688c-4370-9129-96e341af0df1

  • Ranjan, P. (2009). Recent developments in India’s plant variety protection, seed regulation and linkages with UPOV’s proposed membership. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12(3), 219–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renting, H., Marsden, T. K., & Banks, J. (2003). Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A, 35(3), 393–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Réviron, S., Thevenod-Mottet, E., & El Benni, N. (2009). Geographical indications: creation and distribution of economic value in developing countries, NCCR Working Paper no 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagar, R. (2005). Intellectual property, benefit-sharing and traditional knowledge: How effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002? The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8(3), 383–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, J. (2007). Back to the future: Possible mechanisms for the management of plant varieties in Australia. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 30(3), 686–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, J., & Adams, K. (2008). Are plant Breeder’s rights outdated? A descriptive and empirical assessment of plant Breeder’s rights in Australia, 1987- Sanderson 2007. Melbourne University Law Review, 32(3), 980–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seema, P. S. (2012). Protection of farmers’ rights in India challenges for Law in the context of plant breeders’ rights, PhD thesis, Faculty of Law, Cochin University of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2019). IPR in agriculture and their prospects. In C. Roy (Ed.), The role of intellectual property rights in agriculture and allied sciences (pp. 1–64). Oakville, Canada: Apple Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaji, K. A. (2018, May 29). Navara lands in IP rights row, The Hindu., available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/navara-lands-in-ip-rights-row/article24017583.ece. Accessed 3 Dec 2019.

  • Singh, H., & Aggarwal, R. (2013). Marketing of geographical indications in India: An analysis. European Intellectual Property Review, 35(11), 667–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sood, J. (2015a, July 4). Biopiracy case turns intense, available at https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/biopiracy-case-turns-intense-40323

  • Sood, J. (2015b, August 17). Bt brinjal biopiracy case: Court vacates stay, available at https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/bt-brinjal-biopiracy-case-court-vacates-stay%2D%2D-42447. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.

  • Sreeja, V. N. (2013). Indian High Court reinstates criminal proceedings against Monsanto and its partners in India’s first case of bio-piracy. International Business Times, 18 October, available at https://www.ibtimes.com/indian-high-court-reinstates-criminal-proceedings-against-monsanto-its-partners-1431534. Accessed 6 Dec 2012.

  • Srinivasan, C. S. (2004). Plant variety protection in developing countries. Journal of New Seeds, 6(1), 67–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanziani, A. (2004). Wine reputation and quality controls: The origin of the AOCs in 19th century France. European Journal of Law and Economics, 18(2), 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasi, A., et al. (2011). Italian wine demand and differentiation effect of geographical indications. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 23(1), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teuber, R. (2011). Consumers’ and producers’ expectations towards geographical indications; empirical evidence for a German case study. British Food Journal, 113(7), 900–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Hindu, Kerala Tirur betel leaf, Tamil Nadu’s Palani Panchamirtham get GI Tag, August 16, available at https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/kerala-tirur-betel-leaf-tamil-nadus-palani-panchamirtham-get-gi-tag/article29111502.ece. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.

  • Todhunter, C. (2019). Illegal Bt Brinjal Growing in India: A Call to Initiate Criminal Proceedings against Regulators and Corporations, Asia-Pacific Research, 15 May, available at https://www.asia-pacificresearch.com/illegal-bt-brinjal-growing-india-call-initiate-criminal-proceedings-against-regulators-corporations/5628637. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.

  • UPOV.UPOV Report on the Impact of Plant Variety Protection. Geneva.UPOV. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., & Minderhoud-Jones, M. (2000). The socio-economic impact of rural development: Realities and potentials. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 391–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veena, P. G., & Rajasekharan, P. E. (2019). Access and benefit sharing in horticultural genetic resources. In P. E. Rajasekharan & V. R. Rao (Eds.), Conservation and utilization of horticultural genetic resources (pp. 637–662). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Consumer attitude to beef quality labeling and associations with beef quality labels. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 10(3), 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinayan, S. (2017). Geographical indications in India: Issues and challenges—An overview. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 20(3 and 4), 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfree, J. A., & McCluskey, J. (2005). Collective reputation and quality. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(1), 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Lenne, J. M. (1997). The conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm: Questioning the emerging paradigm. Biodiversity Conservation, 6(1), 109–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2002). World development report 2002. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D. (1998). Intellectual property and farmers’ rights. In R. Evenson, D. Gollin, & V. Santaniello (Eds.), Agricultural values of plant genetic resources (pp. 219–232). Wallingford, UK: FAO/CEIS/CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO. (2019). WTO members and observers, available at https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2019.

  • Wu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Analytical chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology and health impact assessment of melamine in infant formula: Recent progress and developments. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 56, 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Finlay, D., & Kneafsey, M. (2014). The effectiveness of contemporary Geographical Indications (GIs) schemes in enhancing the quality of Chinese agrifoods – Experiences from the field. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

Authors
  1. Michael Blakeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Blakeney .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

  2. Hackett Professor of Agriculture Chair and Director of The UWA Institute of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Kadambot H. M. Siddique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blakeney, M. (2020). Legislative Support for Agricultural Innovation in India. In: Blakeney, M., Siddique, K. (eds) Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4611-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation