Federal Court of Australia dismisses APEDA appeal on Basmati rice

• Kashish Kumar
• 22 Aug 2026
• 116 Views

Recently, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) regarding registration of single word mark "Basmati rice" similar to designation given to Champagne. 

The court ruled that term "Basmati rice" cannot effectively distinguish APEDA-certified goods from non-certified goods u/s 177(2) of Australia’s Trade Marks Act 1995. This section provides an additional basis for rejecting an application or opposing the registration of a certification trade mark if it does not have capacity to differentiate certified goods/services. 

It is specified u/s 177(2) that registrar must consider to what extent certification trade mark can inherently distinguish those goods/services. It requires registrar to assess the degree to which certification trade mark has become adapted, whether through its usage or other circumstances, to distinguish those specific goods/services.

GIs are Primarily for Wines

Trade analysts and a geographical indications (GI) expert have identified a gap in Indian government’s approach to GI. They believe that India should pursue GI status for Basmati rice. The New World countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and United States primarily have GIs for wines and lack necessary legislation to address India’s GI requirements. As a result, India is forced to seek word mark certification, according to S. Chandrasekaran, who is the author of Basmati Rice: Natural History of Geographical Indication.

India should approach World Trade Organization (WTO) to ensure the full implementation of Section 3 of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement among member countries. This would help secure recognition for Basmati rice and other unique products, such as Darjeeling tea. He added that India should advocate that unique agricultural products be granted GI status.

According to the trade analysts, when India was facing difficulties in getting GI recognition for its unique agricultural products, it should have sought protection for these products through its free trade agreements with countries such as Australia.

Example of European Union’s Prosecco

In Australia, Kenya and New Zealand, India has been unsuccessful in getting word mark registration for the Basmati rice. Since July 2018, India’s application remains pending in the European Union. Chandrasekaran questioned that if the European Union can get GI status for its Prosecco wine, why can’t India get a similar status for Basmati rice and other products. He mentioned that the agriculture of Pakistan was formed through hydraulic colonies just prior to 1947. He said that India should have contested its case on the basis of the historic reputation of Basmati origin. 

APEDA, the statutory authority responsible for protecting and regulating Geographical Indication (GI) products, appealed to the Federal Court against a ruling by the Registrar of the Australian Trade Mark Office regarding the protection of the term “Basmati.” The Indian authority sought to have "Basmati" recognized as a Geographical Indication. 

Basmati Rice is ‘Not Grown Only in India’

The appeal made by APEDA was dismissed by Justice Dowling J. He ruled that he was not convinced that a Basmati trademark could effectively distinguish goods certified by APEDA from those that are not. This appeal followed a decision made by the Australian Trademark Office in January 2023, which refused APEDA’s application for a certification trademark on the grounds that Basmati rice is “not grown only in India.” 

The ruling was welcomed by Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce, which expressed relief at the dismissal of APEDA’s appeal. While the Indian authority sought a “de novo” (from the beginning) hearing, the court determined that there was no need to find an error in the original ruling from the Trademark Office. 

Australia’s Obligation under TRIPS Agreement

While acknowledging Australia’s obligations under the TRIPS agreement to recognize geographical indications (GIs), Justice Dowling J stated that these obligations do not provide a solid justification for expanding the scope of trade mark registrations in Canberra. He emphasized the fact that international agreements like TRIPS do not automatically extend Australian certification trade mark law to protect foreign geographical indications without meeting domestic distinctiveness standards.

The Trade Marks Office noted that its registrar based decisions on evidence from National Library of Australia, which indicated that a search for "basmati" and "rice" yielded publications mentioning Pakistan as origin of Basmati rice. Analysts also highlighted that earlier this year, the European Union signed a free trade agreement with Australia. This agreement included a significant concession requiring Canberra to implement a GI protection system for spirits as well as agricultural products. 

Also Read: How to export Basmati Rice from India?

Argument Presented by APEDA

According to the deal, Australia is required to protect 231 spirit geographical indications (GIs) and 165 agricultural goods GIs, primarily focused on dairy and small goods. However, Australia has received concessions allowing it to use names for specific products, such as Prosecco from European Union, until they are phased out over a 10-year period. APEDA, which submitted an application for word mark on 26 February 2019 claimed that from 1988 to August 2018, the volume of Indian basmati rice sold in retail outlets exceeded 306,095 tonnes with a total value of $380 million. 

In comparison, Pakistan's sales amounted to only $44.12 million. The judge noted that he would not consider sales data to be most probative evidence or factual proof. Technically, APEDA has the option to challenge these findings in the High Court of Australia as this court serves as the final court of appeal.

Source: Business Line