On August 12, 2026, the Australian Federal Court dismissed an appeal by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) concerning the trademark status of Basmati rice. The court’s decision did not address the geographical origin, reputation, or authenticity of Basmati rice. Instead, it focused on the limitations of using Basmati as a certification trademark.
The essence of a certification trademark is to distinguish the certified products of one trader from those of another. However, Basmati, by its nature, is a type of rice grown and certified across multiple countries, making it unsuitable for such a trademark. This is the core issue that connects legal debates from Chennai to Canberra, Wellington, and Brussels.
The Trademark vs. Geographical Indication Debate
India’s efforts to legally protect Basmati rice have met with challenges due to the distinct legal frameworks involved. Trademarks, as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999, focus on distinguishing goods from different enterprises. If a term is merely descriptive, it fails the distinctiveness test.
Geographical indications (GI), on the other hand, as per Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, emphasize the link between the product’s quality, reputation, or characteristics and its geographical origin. This distinction highlights why the approach to protect Basmati under trademark law has often failed.
Case Study: Australia and New Zealand
In 2022, Australia’s decision revealed that the market associated Basmati with rice from India and Pakistan, but did not distinguish APEDA-certified rice from others. Similarly, New Zealand’s Intellectual Property Office, in 2024, found that Basmati in their market came from a broad geographical area, which weakened the trademark distinctiveness claim.
The evidence that could support a GI claim—wide cultivation across specific regions—actually undermined the certification trademark claim. APEDA’s evidence was too extensive for the trademark instrument used.
Why Trademark Law Was Chosen
India’s choice to pursue trademark law was not strategic but structural. Australia and New Zealand lack a dedicated GI register for products like rice, unlike the European Union’s PGI/PDO scheme under Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012. Thus, India resorted to certification trademarks, which were bound to face doctrinal challenges.
In contrast, the EU case involved the correct GI instrument under Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012, which focuses on terroir and reputation rather than distinctiveness. This led to prolonged procedural battles rather than outright rejection.
More Read
Domestic and International Implications
India’s domestic laws, including the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognize the importance of separating trademarks from GIs. Section 25 of the GI Act empowers the Registrar to cancel trademarks that mislead consumers about a product’s true origin.
The ongoing Madhya Pradesh litigation concerning Basmati rice demarcation is a critical domestic issue that affects international GI claims. The resolution of this case will provide an evidentiary basis for future international disputes.
India’s future litigation strategy must consider these distinctions. Pursuing certification trademarks in common law jurisdictions with no GI registry may be counterproductive. Instead, focusing on GI concepts in international disputes and resolving domestic demarcation issues will strengthen India’s position.
The Basmati rice debate highlights the importance of choosing the appropriate legal tools and understanding the nuanced differences between trademarks and GIs.
