In the vibrant cultural landscape of Kerala, the Onavillu stands as a testament to the state's rich heritage. The Onavillu is not merely a decorative item; it is steeped in the mythology and traditions of Kerala. Historically, these bows were crafted from select woods like Kadambu or Jackfruit and embellished with depictions of Hindu deities and epic narratives. They were traditionally offered to Lord Vishnu at the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram during Onam, symbolizing devotion and artistry.
The city of Thiruvananthapuram is currently embroiled in a contentious legal battle between the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Administration and the Onavillu Family, renowned artisans of the revered bow-shaped artifact known as the "Onavillu." This artifact holds deep religious significance, traditionally presented to the deity during Thiruvonam, a pivotal day in the Onam festival.
At the heart of the dispute lies the ownership and trademark rights of the Onavillu. Led by Binkumar, the Onavillu family has meticulously preserved their centuries-old craft, culminating in Binkumar successfully securing a trademark for Onavillu in 2011, valid until 2031. This trademark has not only safeguarded their livelihood but also enabled them to continue crafting and distributing Onavillu to the broader community. However, tensions escalated unexpectedly when the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple administration applied for its own trademark for Onavillu. Their argument pivots on the belief that the Onavillu attains religious sanctity only through the temple's sacred rites. Despite Binkumar's established trademark, the Trade Marks Registry granted the temple administration their trademark for Onavillu. This decision has sparked a fierce legal confrontation between the temple and the Onavillu family, challenging the very foundation of their craft and heritage.
This clash underscores the intricate intersection of intellectual property rights, cultural heritage, and religious practices.
The Dispute
Bindu Sankarapillai, the counsel representing the temple, stated that Binkumar had been served notices for selling Onavillu despite the temple's trademark. The temple's petition to cancel Binkumar's trademark is pending for final decision however currently, the temple holds a registered trademark for Onavillu.
In response, Binkumar has filed a counter-petition challenging the temple's trademark. He asserts that the temple has no proprietary rights over the Onavillu and that his family, as authorized craftsmen, have the right to make and sell the Onavillu. Binkumar emphasizes that the Onavillu family has a historical and traditional right to their craft, which predates the temple's recent trademark claim.
Temple's Historical Evidence & The Impact On The Onavillu Family
The temple administration has presented compelling evidence dating back to 1960, including references from the Mathilakam documents and historical records of the Travancore royal family. They argue that the Onavillu acquires its religious sanctity exclusively through the temple's sacred rituals, supporting their petition for a trademark aligned with these customs.
Meanwhile, the Karamana Melarannoor Vilayil Veedu family continues their centuries-old tradition of meticulously crafting and annually dedicating 12 Onavillu to the temple on Thiruvonam day. These bows symbolize various deities and revered figures such as Dashavataram, Ananthasayanam, Sri Rama Pattabhishekam, Krishnaleela, Shasta, and Vinayaka, with two dedicated to each.
Despite this ongoing tradition, the family faces adversity as they are now prohibited from crafting or commercially distributing Onavillu due to the temple's trademark claim. This poses a dire threat to their livelihood and the preservation of their ancestral craftsmanship. The family vehemently opposes the temple's trademark assertion, arguing it undermines their historical contributions and rights to sustain the Onavillu tradition.
Critical Analysis
The ongoing trademark battle over the Onavillu between the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and the Onavillu family highlights a significant clash between preserving religious traditions and protecting artisanal rights. This case prompts us to reflect deeply on cultural artifact ownership and the complexities of commercializing sacred items.
From the temple's perspective, their position is rooted in the belief that the sanctification of the Onavillu through temple rituals is what grants it its profound religious significance. Seeking a trademark is their way of ensuring the authenticity and sanctity of the Onavillu used in the Thiruvonam ceremony. Their reliance on historical evidence and adherence to traditional practices underscores their commitment to preserving the purity of religious customs.
On the other hand, the Onavillu family vehemently argues for the recognition and preservation of their centuries-old craftsmanship. Crafting Onavillu is not just a livelihood but a deeply ingrained cultural heritage passed down through generations. The trademark obtained by Binkumar has been crucial in sustaining their craft and economic stability. Any threat to this right not only jeopardizes their livelihood but also risks eroding a cherished tradition that holds profound significance for the community.
A balanced resolution should ideally respect both the temple's religious imperatives and the family's artisanal rights. One potential solution could involve a collaborative approach: the temple oversees the sanctification process to maintain religious authenticity, while the Onavillu family retains the right to continue crafting and distributing these artifacts. This compromise could effectively uphold the sanctity of the Onavillu while ensuring the continuity of traditional craftsmanship, thereby preserving cultural heritage in its true essence.
In essence, finding common ground in this dispute is crucial not only for the immediate stakeholders but also for navigating the broader implications on cultural identity, religious practices, and the rights of traditional artisans in a rapidly changing world.
Conclusion
As of July 2024, the trademark dispute over the Onavillu between the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and the Onavillu family remains unresolved, underscoring the intricate balance between religious traditions and the rights of traditional craftsmen. The ongoing proceedings carry profound implications for both preserving cultural heritage and safeguarding the Onavillu family's livelihood.
The trademark dispute between Padmanabhaswamy Temple and Binkumar over the Onavillu is emblematic of broader challenges faced by traditional cultures in the modern world. As the artisans of Kerala strive to preserve their heritage amidst commercial pressures, this legal battle highlights the need for legal frameworks that respect and protect cultural contexts.
Finding a fair resolution is crucial to uphold this centuries-old tradition in Thiruvananthapuram. It requires respecting the sacred significance of the artifact to the temple while also honoring the craftsmanship and enduring dedication of the Onavillu family. Achieving consensus on this complex issue is vital for nurturing mutual respect and preserving cultural authenticity into the future. By adopting a balanced approach that safeguards both the economic and cultural dimensions of traditional artifacts, it is possible to ensure that the legacy of the Onavillu continues to thrive for future generations.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.