New Zealand Court Denies India’s Basmati Rice Certification Bid

The New Zealand High Court has rejected an appeal by India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) regarding the certification of basmati rice. The ruling, announced on October 30, 2023, follows a series of challenges faced by India in securing international protection for its basmati rice, which is recognized for its unique qualities.

In February 2019, APEDA submitted an application to the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) seeking a certification trademark for Indian basmati. However, the application was denied five years later due to provisions in the Trade Marks Act of 2002. The Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks determined that the word “Basmati” could not be registered as a certification mark because the Basmati Growing Area (BGA) extends across both India and Pakistan. The court emphasized that granting exclusive certification to India would unfairly limit Pakistani producers from entering the New Zealand market.

The court’s ruling also referenced a previous decision from December 2022 by Australia’s Registrar of Trade Marks. That ruling indicated that the term “Basmati” does not distinguish rice certified by APEDA from genuine basmati produced outside India. APEDA’s attempts to amend its application to include safeguards for Pakistani producers were deemed insufficient by the High Court, which stated that these refinements did not resolve the underlying contradictions in the application.

India’s challenges continued as Kenya’s Court of Appeal also dismissed APEDA’s plea against a April 2017 High Court ruling. This case involved APEDA’s opposition to the registration of trademarks containing the word “Basmati” by Krish Commodities, a Kenyan company that applied for the trademark in 2009. The Kenyan Registrar of Trademarks had previously rejected APEDA’s opposition in May 2013, a decision that was upheld by the High Court and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Kenyan court noted that basmati rice lacks formal registration or recognition in Kenya, leaving APEDA without any legal basis for exclusive rights. Furthermore, it found no evidence that Krish Commodities’ trademarks were misleading under local law.

These setbacks have stirred discussions within the international community regarding geographical indications (GIs). Experts have raised concerns about APEDA’s failure to secure a single GI registration for Indian basmati rice outside of India, despite the rice receiving GI status domestically in 2016. An expert in global GI regulations has called for an independent review of how these cases have been managed over the past nine years.

Chandrasekaran, author of “Basmati Rice: The Natural History of Geographical Indication,” emphasized the need for India to adopt a broader perspective beyond a “Euro-centric definition” of GIs. He advocates for aligning GI claims with India’s cultural context and adhering to global standards concerning reputation and origin.

Both the New Zealand and Kenyan court decisions indicate significant hurdles for India in its efforts to safeguard the identity of basmati rice under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The outcomes signal a complicated path ahead as India seeks to establish the global recognition of its agricultural heritage.