Can India Own “Basmati” in Australia? Why Pisco Won but Basmati Lost
Can one country secure trade mark rights over the name of a product that is also legitimately produced somewhere else?
India’s agricultural export authority, APEDA, sought to register BASMATI as a certification trade mark in Australia. The proposed mark was intended to identify Basmati rice grown in India and certified under APEDA’s standards.
There was, however, a significant complication: Basmati rice is also grown in Pakistan.
The Federal Court found that Australian consumers understand Basmati primarily as a type of aromatic, long-grain rice grown in both India and Pakistan—not as an indication that the rice has been certified by an Indian authority.
In this episode, Elise explains why the BASMATI word mark was refused and compares the decision with the recent PISCO case, where Peru successfully registered PISCO as a certification trade mark.
The two cases applied the same legal principles but produced opposite results. The difference came down to the evidence and what the names actually communicate to Australian consumers.
In this episode
Elise discusses:
- What a certification trade mark is and how it differs from an ordinary trade mark
- Why APEDA wanted to register the word BASMATI
- The significance of Basmati rice being grown in both India and Pakistan
- What Australian consumers understand “Basmati” to mean
- Why substantial sales and an association with India were not enough
- The difference between consumer association and a word functioning as a certification mark
- Why APEDA’s proposed packaging rules and conditions did not solve the problem
- How the Basmati decision compares with Peru’s successful PISCO application
- Why PISCO indicated geographic origin while BASMATI indicated a product type
- What businesses and industry bodies should consider before trying to protect a regional or traditional product name
The key distinction
In the Pisco case, the evidence supported the conclusion that Australian consumers were likely to understand PISCO as referring to a location or region in Peru from which the beverage originated.
In the Basmati case, the evidence showed that Australian consumers understood BASMATI as the name of a type of rice grown in both India and Pakistan.
Pakistani producers therefore had a legitimate need to use the word Basmati for their own rice, even though that rice had not been certified by APEDA.
Practical takeaway
A product may have a genuine connection with a region, recognised characteristics and significant cultural or commercial importance without its name necessarily being registrable as a certification trade mark in Australia.
International recognition as a geographical indication does not guarantee Australian registration. The critical questions include:
- What does the name mean to Australian consumers?
- Does it identify geographic origin, a product category or a certification system?
- Are other traders already using the name legitimately?
- Does the mark distinguish certified products from products that have not been certified?
- Would a distinctive logo or composite certification mark offer more realistic protection?
Authenticity matters—but authenticity and registrability are not the same thing.
Cases discussed
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 1125
Republic of Peru (Peruvian State) v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791
Need help protecting a valuable name?
Not sure whether your business owns and protects its important intellectual property?
Use Elise’s online IP Risk and Ownership Audit to identify potential gaps involving your trade marks, copyright, branding, ownership arrangements and commercial agreements:
www.elisesteegstra.com/ip-audit
If the audit identifies an issue—or you are developing a certification scheme, protecting a regional product or considering whether a valuable name can be registered—you can also book an IP Strategy Call at:
Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.
