We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry.
We focus on grains and food industry. current time
Australia Court Rejects APEDA’s Bid to Protect ‘Basmati Rice’ as Certification Mark
The Federal Court of Australia has rejected APEDA’s appeal seeking trademark protection for the term “Basmati rice”, dealing a setback to India’s efforts to secure stronger international recognition for the premium rice variety.
The court upheld the Australian Trade Marks Office’s earlier decision that the proposed certification mark could not adequately distinguish rice certified by APEDA from similar products originating elsewhere. Under Australia’s Trade Marks Act 1995, certification marks must be capable of identifying goods that meet specific standards from those that do not.
A key issue in the case was the geographical identity of Basmati. Australian authorities found evidence showing that the rice is associated with both India and Pakistan. This made it difficult for APEDA to establish that Australian consumers would regard the term exclusively as an indicator of rice certified by the Indian authority.
APEDA had filed its application in February 2019. To support its claim, it presented sales figures showing that more than 306,000 tonnes of Indian Basmati had been sold through Australian retail outlets between 1988 and August 2018, generating around $380 million in sales. Pakistani Basmati sales during the same period were estimated at $44.12 million.
However, the court did not consider the sales figures sufficient to establish the distinctiveness required under Australian trademark law.
The ruling has also revived questions over India’s wider strategy for protecting its geographical indications overseas. Basmati already has GI recognition in India, but securing equivalent protection in foreign markets has proved difficult. Similar attempts have faced obstacles in Australia, New Zealand and Kenya, while India’s application in the European Union has remained pending since 2018.
The dispute has gained added significance following the EU-Australia trade agreement, under which Australia has agreed to strengthen protection for hundreds of European geographical indications covering agricultural products and spirits. The arrangement also gives Australia transition periods for the continued use of some names, including Prosecco.
For India, the Australian decision could strengthen the case for pursuing GI protection through bilateral trade agreements and international negotiations rather than depending primarily on individual trademark applications.
The Federal Court dismissed APEDA’s appeal with costs. The authority may still seek to take the matter to the High Court of Australia, although any further challenge would be subject to the court’s appeal requirements.
