New Zealand Court Denies India’s Basmati Rice Certification Appeal

In a significant ruling, the New Zealand High Court has dismissed an appeal from the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) concerning the certification of Indian basmati rice. The decision, announced on October 30, 2023, comes as a setback for India’s attempts to obtain global protection for this highly valued agricultural product.

APEDA, which oversees the implementation of the Geographical Indication (GI) tag in India, submitted its application for certification mark protection to the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) in February 2019. The application was ultimately rejected by the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks five years later, based on the provisions of New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act, 2002. The Act prevents the registration of the word ‘Basmati’ as a certification mark, according to The Hindustan Business Line.

The High Court upheld the IPONZ’s decision, noting that the Basmati Growing Area (BGA) extends across both India and Pakistan. The court stated that granting certification solely to India would unfairly limit the ability of Pakistani basmati producers to sell their rice in the New Zealand market. Additionally, the court referenced a ruling from December 2022 by Australia’s Registrar of Trade Marks, which concluded that the term “Basmati” does not distinguish rice certified by APEDA from authentic basmati rice produced outside India.

APEDA’s attempts to refine its application to include safeguards for Pakistani producers were also dismissed by the High Court. The court deemed these modifications insufficient to resolve the fundamental issues identified in the original application.

India encountered further challenges when the Court of Appeal in Kenya dismissed APEDA’s plea against a previous High Court ruling from April 2017. This case involved APEDA’s opposition to the registration of trademarks incorporating the word “Basmati” by Krish Commodities, a Kenya-based company that filed its application in 2009. The Kenyan Registrar of Trademarks had initially rejected APEDA’s opposition in May 2013, a decision that the High Court upheld and the Court of Appeal reaffirmed.

The Kenyan court emphasized that basmati rice lacks formal registration or recognition in Kenya, leaving APEDA without a legal basis to assert exclusive rights. Furthermore, it found no evidence that Krish Commodities’ trademarks were misleading according to Kenyan law.

These dual setbacks have raised concerns within the international GI community. An expert in global GI regulations expressed alarm that APEDA has yet to secure any GI registration for Indian basmati rice outside India, despite the rice receiving GI tag status in India in 2016. This expert has called for an independent review of how these cases have been managed over the past nine years.

Chandrasekaran, an authority on geographical indications and author of “Basmati Rice: The Natural History of Geographical Indication,” suggested that India’s approach should evolve beyond a “Euro-centric definition” of GI. He emphasized the necessity to align GI claims with India’s historical and cultural context while adhering to global standards of reputation and origin.

The rulings from both the New Zealand and Kenyan courts signal a challenging journey ahead for India as it seeks to protect the identity of basmati rice under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. As the country strives to fortify its agricultural heritage on the international stage, the outcomes of these legal battles highlight the complexities involved in securing trademark protections in an increasingly competitive global market.