Opinion In whose name?

Like in all such disputes,there are two sides to the Khan Chacha story. The first version comes from the Hassans. The Hassans have been in the kebab business in Khan Market since the early ’70s,assiduously building up a reputation and goodwill among their steadily growing and increasingly loyal clientele. Their eatery has,of course,changed location over the years,most recently in 2006 when it moved into the now disputed property owned by Goel. The Hassans claim that they were tenants at the property and paid a monthly rent,and ran an independent business under the Khan Chacha brand name.

There was no trouble for two and a half years until Goel decided to open a new restaurant in Delhi’s Satya Niketan under the Khan Chacha brand. He then planned to expand the hole-in-the-wall Khan Market eatery into a plusher two-storey outlet,under the same brand name. The Hassans claim that they had no wish to franchise. And that Goel had no right to expand using their brand name without their consent. So he ordered them to vacate the Khan Market property. Without using the technicalities,what the Hassans essentially allege is that Goel has pirated their brand name — Khan Chacha is inextricably associated with the Hassans and the quality food at reasonable prices they serve,which is a violation of their intellectual property.

However,and this is the key,the Hassans had no idea that they could register a trademark which would grant them protection from this sort of thing.

Goel’s version of the story is quite different. While he readily admits that the Hassans have been selling kebabs in Khan Market since the early ’70s,he challenges them to prove that they did so under the Khan Chacha brand. Instead,he told your correspondent,that he was the one who first put up the Khan Chacha board when the Hassans moved into his property. And that he is the one who assiduously built the brand “Khan Chacha”,and in fact legitimately registered it under his name. The Hassans,he says,were well aware of this. All the time that they were on his property,there was a signboard outside saying that Khan Chacha was a unit of Goel Foods. So,in Goel’s view,he has the intellectual property rights over the particular Khan Chacha brand name/ trademark. But since the Hassans and their recipes were strongly associated with the brand,he was quite happy to have them as partners,but which they refused.

Goel believes that the Hassans are now trying to subvert his rights over the brand name by appealing to emotion and the media.

The fact is that either of them could be right,but not both — one is certainly indulging in copycat piracy. There must be countless other ambiguous cases like this in India,particularly in the large domain of small unorganised business,where the knowledge of intellectual property rights is at best rudimentary. And these disputes cannot be settled by emotion or the media. They require a serious,and preferably quick,intellectual property dispute settlement mechanism,which we lack at the moment. If a case like this drags in a regular court for years,the Hassans,Goel and we the consumers all stand to lose.

A good intellectual property rights regime,apart from speed in dispute resolution,should at a minimum try to reward genuine innovators,satisfy consumers and keep pirates and thieves out of business all at the same time. There can be genuine debate about how exactly to balance genuine innovator interest with consumer interest but there should be no debate about the status of infringers of intellectual property rights.

We really have nothing to fear from a stronger intellectual property regime backed by a serious awareness drive,other than from the scaremongers and intellectual pirates. It will help prevent confusion of the Khan Chacha variety. And don’t for a minute believe that a strong IPR regime,while avoiding confusion and spreading awareness,will compromise consumer interest. That’s scaremongering. It will not.

Even in the most contentious area of intellectual property rights — pharma — there are solutions which balance the interests of producers and consumers. Patents and exclusive marketing rights ensure that companies can earn return on their massive investments. We need that as an incentive or firms will not invest in the development of new drugs which we so desperately need as consumers. This helps not only Western pharma firms,but Indians pharma firms too as they engage in more R&D and move up the value chain. Safeguards like compulsory licensing ensure that in case of a health emergency no one is deprived of affordable drugs.

Take the rather different examples of copyright in films. If we want good quality films (which need big budgets),we need producers,not pirates,to make money. In any case,cinema tickets are competitively priced,so there is no fear of consumer exploitation. And now,we get very quick DVD releases at very reasonable prices — in consumer interest.

It’s time that we called an end to laxity on intellectual property rights. Limited awareness and weak intellectual property rights institutions affect us all as the Hassans,Rajiv Goel,and patrons of Khan Chacha will all testify.

dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com