New Zealand Court Rejects India’s Basmati Rice Certification Bid

A recent ruling from the New Zealand High Court has dealt a significant blow to India’s efforts to protect its basmati rice on the global stage. The court dismissed an appeal from the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), which sought certification for Indian basmati rice after its initial application was rejected. This decision, made public on October 30, 2023, highlights ongoing challenges faced by India in securing international recognition for its agricultural products.

The saga began when APEDA approached the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) in February 2019, seeking a certification mark for basmati rice. However, the application was denied five years later. The Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks cited New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act, 2002, which prohibits the registration of the term “Basmati” as a certification mark. The court upheld this decision, noting that the Basmati Growing Area (BGA) encompasses both India and Pakistan. The court reasoned that granting exclusive rights to India would unfairly limit Pakistani producers from accessing the New Zealand market.

Additionally, the ruling referenced a previous decision by Australia’s Registrar of Trade Marks, which stated that the term “Basmati” does not sufficiently distinguish rice certified by APEDA from genuine basmati originating outside of India. APEDA’s attempts to amend its application to safeguard Pakistani producers were deemed insufficient by the High Court, which pointed out a fundamental contradiction in its proposals.

India’s difficulties did not end with the New Zealand ruling. The Kenyas Court of Appeal also dismissed APEDA’s challenge against a High Court ruling from April 2017. This case involved APEDA’s opposition to trademarks containing the word “Basmati” filed 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 confirmed by both the High Court and now the Court of Appeal. The Kenyan judges noted the absence of formal registration or recognition of basmati rice in the country, leaving APEDA without legal grounds to assert exclusive rights. They also found no evidence that Krish Commodities’ trademarks were misleading under Kenyan law.

These dual setbacks have raised concerns within the international Geographical Indication (GI) community. Experts have pointed out that APEDA has not secured any GI registration for Indian basmati rice overseas, despite the rice being granted GI status in India in 2016. One expert called for an independent review of how these cases have been managed over the past nine years. Chandrasekaran, an author on the subject, emphasized the need for India to move beyond a Euro-centric definition of GI and align its claims with the country’s civilizational context and international standards regarding reputation and origin.

Both the New Zealand and Kenyan courts have signaled a challenging path for India as it attempts to protect the identity of its basmati rice globally. The dismissals of APEDA’s applications under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement reflect ongoing complexities in international trade and intellectual property rights, leaving India’s agricultural sector facing significant hurdles in its quest for global recognition.