Meghalaya: A·Chik group seeks ban, seizure of ‘Momin Biri’ over trademark, child-rights violations

Guwahati: The A·Chik State Peoples Front (ASPF) has sought an immediate ban and seizure of “Momin Biri” being traded in the Garo Hills, alleging violations of trading licence regulations, trademark law, tobacco control provisions and child rights laws.

In a memorandum submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of West Garo Hills, the organisation sought cancellation of GHADC Trading Licence No. 34476, dated September 24, 2024, issued to Alom Hussain of Sakmal, Rajabala. The ASPF alleged that the licence was being used for the wholesale trade of “Momin Biri”.

The organisation said two manufacturers or claimants had applied for trademarks for the same brand name. Amit Karmakar of Arpan Biri Factory, Aurangabad, Murshidabad, West Bengal, filed Trade Mark Application No. 5511063 on June 30, 2022, while Ashikul Momin Khandakar of South Salmara-Mankachar, Assam, filed Trade Mark Application No. 5448780 on May 14, 2022. Both applications are marked “OPPOSED”, according to the ASPF.

The organisation said the TNT licence of Ashikul Momin Khandakar had already been cancelled and his business stopped. It alleged that Amit Karmakar’s product was currently being sold in the market through wholesale holder Alom Hussain.

The ASPF alleged that both parties had used the Garo Mahari name “Momin” for their biri businesses in the Garo Hills. It further claimed that only Amit Karmakar’s product was currently being sold through Alom Hussain.

Citing the Meghalaya (GHADC) Trading by Non-Tribals Regulation, 1959, the organisation alleged that the trading licence could be cancelled under Sections 3 and 8 if the trade was prejudicial to tribal interests or involved false representation.

The ASPF also alleged that “Momin” is a notified Garo Scheduled Tribe Mahari or clan and claimed that its use by a non-tribal factory for commercial purposes amounted to misrepresentation and exploitation of tribal identity.

On the trademark issue, the organisation referred to Sections 9(2)(a) and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It said both trademark applications for “Momin Biri” had remained “OPPOSED” since 2022. The ASPF further alleged that printing “COPY RIGHT” and “BEWARE FROM IMITATION” on the packaging without registration amounted to a false trade description.

The organisation also alleged violations of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003, claiming that the packets did not carry an 85% pictorial health warning in the local language. It sought seizure of the stock and referred to the powers of the District Tobacco Control Officer, including a fine of Rs. 5,000 per violation.

The complaint further alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, claiming that selling the product using the name of a Garo clan could mislead consumers and amount to an unfair trade practice.

The ASPF also raised concerns over the packaging, alleging that the bundles did not carry the MRP, weight, date or GST bill. It claimed that the front of the packet carried the obsolete RC No. BVPPK0099CEM001, which it said was abolished in 2017, while the back carried GSTIN 19BVPPK0099C1ZC. The organisation alleged that the dual numbering violated Rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules.

The complaint also referred to what the ASPF described as a “Marak Biri” case. The organisation alleged that the same group had recently launched “Marak Biri”, using another Garo clan name, “Marak”. It said the product was opposed by the public and closed before it could be sold in the market.

The ASPF also raised allegations over the use of a minor child’s photograph on the “Momin Biri” packet. It claimed that the photograph was prominently displayed to promote the tobacco product and alleged violations of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, COTPA and child rights provisions.

The organisation referred to Sections 77 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, alleging that the use of a child for supplying or vending intoxicants and the use of a child in a hazardous tobacco industry attracted these provisions.

It also cited Section 5 of COTPA, which prohibits direct and indirect advertisement of tobacco products, and Section 6, concerning the sale of tobacco products to minors. The ASPF alleged that using a child’s photograph made the packet appealing to minors and amounted to indirect advertising.

The complaint further referred to National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) guidelines and alleged that the photograph had been used without permission from the Child Welfare Committee or District Child Protection Officer. It also cited the Child Labour (Prohibition) Act, 2016, alleging that using a child as a brand model in the hazardous bidi industry amounted to prohibited child labour.

The ASPF said the packet itself constituted the primary evidence and referred to it as “Enclosure 3E”.

On the ownership dispute, the organisation acknowledged that the matter remains sub judice. It said ownership of “Momin Biri” is disputed between Amit Karmakar, whose application is numbered 5511063, and Ashikul Momin Khandakar, whose application is numbered 5448780, with both applications marked “OPPOSED” before the Registrar of Trade Marks.