Can India Trade Mark Basmati in Australia?

Can a country protect the name of a famous regional product when that product is also legitimately made somewhere else?

That was the challenge facing India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority—known as APEDA—when it sought to register BASMATI as a certification trade mark in Australia.

For Indian producers, Basmati is not simply a generic description of rice. It is a product with recognised characteristics, a long history and a strong connection with a particular growing region.

However, Basmati rice is also grown in Pakistan.

The Federal Court therefore had to decide what the word “Basmati” communicates to Australian consumers. Does it indicate rice originating in India and certified under APEDA’s standards? Or does it simply identify a particular type of rice that may come from India or Pakistan?

The Court concluded that BASMATI could not be registered as a certification trade mark on its own.

The decision makes an interesting comparison with the recent PISCO case. In that case, Peru successfully registered PISCO as a certification trade mark in Australia, even though Chile also produces and sells a spirit called pisco.

The same legal principles applied in both cases. The different outcomes came down to the evidence—and what Australian consumers understood each name to mean.

What is a certification trade mark?

An ordinary trade mark distinguishes the goods or services of one business from those offered by other businesses.

A certification trade mark performs a slightly different role. It tells consumers that goods or services meet standards set by a certifying body.

Those standards might concern:

• geographic origin;
• quality or ingredients;
• production methods;
• environmental practices; or
• another defined characteristic.

The certification mark must still perform a distinguishing function. It needs to separate products certified under the relevant scheme from products that have not been certified.

APEDA applied to register two certification trade marks in Australia:

• the word BASMATI by itself; and
• a device mark incorporating the word BASMATI.

The device mark was accepted. The word mark was refused.

APEDA appealed that refusal to the Federal Court.

What does “Basmati” mean in Australia?

The central issue was the “ordinary signification” of Basmati.

Put more simply: what would an ordinary Australian consumer or trader understand the word to mean?

APEDA argued that Basmati had a strong association with India. It relied on evidence of significant exports and sales of Indian Basmati rice in Australia.

Between 1988 and 2019, more than 306,000 metric tonnes of Basmati rice were exported from India to Australia, with an approximate value of US$380 million.

However, evidence of substantial sales does not necessarily establish that a word functions as a certification mark.

There was also significant evidence of Pakistani Basmati rice being sold in Australia, including through major supermarket chains. Its packaging identified Pakistan as the country of origin.

Cookbooks, dictionaries and other reference materials similarly described Basmati as rice associated with both India and Pakistan.

The evidence indicated that Australian consumers generally understood Basmati to be a distinctive type of aromatic, long-grain rice grown in a region spanning parts of both countries.

That created a fundamental problem for APEDA’s application.

Association is not the same as certification

APEDA also relied on consumer survey evidence.

Approximately 71 per cent of respondents associated Basmati with rice. However, only around 30 per cent identified India alone when asked where Basmati rice came from.

More than half did not identify a place at all.

Even if the evidence had established a stronger association with India, that would not necessarily have resolved the problem.

A consumer may associate Basmati rice with India without understanding the word BASMATI to mean:

This rice has been inspected and certified by APEDA under its Indian certification system.

That distinction was crucial.

APEDA’s certification scheme applied to Basmati produced in India. It did not certify Basmati produced in Pakistan.

The word BASMATI therefore described both:

• rice certified under APEDA’s system; and
• Pakistani rice that could legitimately be described as Basmati but had not been certified by APEDA.

The word could not, by itself, distinguish between the two.

A genuine regional product without an exclusive certification meaning

The Court accepted that Basmati is a particular product with recognised characteristics and a connection to a defined growing region.

Those characteristics include its long, slender grains, aroma, texture and shape. Its traditional growing area is associated with the Indo-Gangetic plains below the Himalayan foothills.

The problem was not whether Basmati had a genuine geographic, cultural or agricultural identity.

The problem was that the relevant region crosses national borders.

Pakistani producers had a legitimate commercial need to describe their rice as Basmati. They were not using the word to imitate Indian producers or falsely claim APEDA certification. They were using it to identify the product they actually sold.

The Court found that BASMATI was not inherently capable of distinguishing APEDA-certified rice from other Basmati rice. Nor had its use and reputation in Australia given it that distinguishing capacity.

Recognition as a geographical indication in India and elsewhere did not automatically make the name registrable as a certification trade mark in Australia.

Why couldn’t conditions solve the problem?

APEDA proposed rules requiring approved products to display “Product of India” prominently and explain that BASMATI was an APEDA certification trade mark.

It also proposed a condition preserving the ability of Pakistani producers to use Basmati legitimately.

Commercially, that might sound like a sensible compromise. Indian producers could identify their rice as APEDA-certified, while Pakistani producers could continue describing their products as Basmati.

Legally, however, the problem remained.

The application was to register the word BASMATI itself.

The word needed to be capable of distinguishing the certified goods. Accompanying packaging statements or conditions could not give the word a distinguishing meaning it did not otherwise possess.

Australian consumers would still understand Basmati as a type of rice grown in India and Pakistan—not as a badge of certification controlled by APEDA.

The appeal was dismissed.

Why did Pisco succeed?

The outcome contrasts with Republic of Peru (Peruvian State) v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791.

Peru sought to register PISCO as a certification trade mark for alcoholic beverages. Chile also produces a spirit called pisco and had sold Chilean pisco in Australia.

Despite that competing use, Peru’s application succeeded.

The Basmati Court explained that the decisions were not inconsistent. The same legal test had been applied, but the evidence about the meaning of each word was different.

Pisco is the name of a town and region on Peru’s southern coast. Evidence established a history of pisco production in that region extending for more than 450 years.

Peruvian pisco also had a significantly stronger presence in the Australian market than Chilean pisco.

The Court in the Pisco case concluded that an ordinary Australian consumer was more likely than not to understand PISCO as indicating a location or region in Peru from which the beverage originated.

Basmati was different.

It is not the name of one particular place. It is the name of a type of rice connected with a growing region spanning parts of India and Pakistan. There was also substantial evidence of Pakistani Basmati being sold in Australia.

In practical terms:

• PISCO communicated geographic origin in Peru.
• BASMATI communicated a type of rice grown in India and Pakistan.

That difference determined the outcomes.

What can businesses learn from the decisions?

1. Overseas protection does not guarantee Australian registration

A product name may be protected as a geographical indication in its country of origin or recognised in other jurisdictions.

Australia will still apply its own trade mark legislation and consider what the name means in the Australian market.

Businesses and industry bodies should not assume that an international reputation will translate automatically into Australian rights.

2. Reputation and sales are not enough

APEDA demonstrated very substantial Australian sales of Indian Basmati rice.

However, those sales did not prove that consumers relied on BASMATI as an indication of APEDA certification.

Evidence needs to establish what the sign communicates—not merely that consumers recognise it.

3. Consumer evidence must address the right question

It is not enough to show that consumers associate a product with a particular country.

The more important question is whether the name distinguishes certified products from products that have not been certified.

Surveys and other market evidence should be designed with that distinction in mind.

4. Other traders’ legitimate needs matter

Before applying to register a geographic or traditional product name, it is important to investigate how other producers use that name.

If competitors genuinely need the word to describe their products, obtaining exclusive rights will be difficult.

Conditions and disclaimers may not fix a problem arising from the ordinary meaning of the mark itself.

5. A distinctive composite mark may provide a better solution

Although the BASMATI word mark was refused, APEDA’s device mark incorporating the word was accepted.

A distinctive logo, emblem or composite mark may offer meaningful protection where the product name itself is descriptive, geographic or commonly required by other traders.

The certification system can still have commercial value, even if the product name cannot be controlled on its own.

Authenticity and registrability are different questions

The Basmati decision does not suggest that the product lacks history, authenticity or a meaningful connection with its traditional growing region.

It simply demonstrates that those qualities do not automatically make a name registrable as a certification trade mark.

For PISCO, the Australian evidence pointed towards a particular geographic origin in Peru.

For BASMATI, the evidence pointed towards a category of rice produced in both India and Pakistan.

Any business or industry body seeking to protect a regional or traditional product name should investigate:

• what Australian consumers understand the name to mean;
• whether other traders are already using it legitimately;
• whether it identifies a place, a product type or a certification system; and
• whether a distinctive logo or composite mark would provide more effective protection.

The question is not simply where the product comes from or how important its history may be.

The question is whether the proposed mark actually distinguishes the products certified under the particular scheme.

Review your business’s IP position

Not sure whether your business owns and protects its important intellectual property?

Use the free IP Risk and Ownership Audit to identify potential gaps involving your trade marks, branding, copyright, ownership arrangements and commercial agreements:

www.elisesteegstra.com/ip-audit

If 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 through www.elisesteegstra.com.

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
• 
  

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.