Basmati certification mark faced a setback when the Australian Federal Court dismissed APEDA’s appeal on Aug. 12, 2026, leaving the broader question of the rice’s origin untouched.
Australian court rebuffs APEDA’s bid
The ruling did not address whether the grain’s reputation is tied to a specific region. Instead, it focused narrowly on the fact that the mark cannot function as a certification brand.
Under the definition, a certification brand must let consumers tell one supplier’s goods from another’s. The term in question points to a type of rice grown and sold across several nations, not to a single source.
Why the mark fails distinctiveness test
India has argued for protection for nearly twenty years, using two separate legal routes that answer different questions. One asks if a sign can separate one trader’s output from another’s; the other asks if a name signals a product’s terroir.
If a sign merely describes the goods, the law says it lacks distinctiveness. The Basmati label, being descriptive of the grain itself, runs into that obstacle.
By contrast, the origin‑based protection under Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement looks at whether a name points to a territory whose qualities are tied to that place. Here, the focus is on reputation, not on separating sellers.
Read Also: India’s Arbitration Delayed by Months-Long Hearing Gaps
The same evidence that shows Basmati’s long‑standing, cross‑border cultivation helps a regional label claim but undermines a certification brand claim.
Limits of the legal toolbox abroad
In 2022, an Australian registrar found that while many consumers linked “Basmati” to Indian and Pakistani rice, the evidence did not prove the term set APEDA‑certified grain apart from other sellers with equal rights to the name.
New Zealand’s IP office reached the same conclusion in 2024, noting APEDA’s own survey showed the rice came from a wide geographic spread, weakening any claim of distinctiveness.
August 12, 2026 – Australian Federal Court – appeal denied; 2024, New Zealand IP office, similar rejection; 2022, Australian registrar, distinctiveness finding.
Looking ahead, India may need to reconsider its approach. Continuing to push a brand mark that the facts show is generic could lead to more rejections, while a narrower collective application or a request for a dedicated regional label system might align better with the legal criteria abroad.
Australia’s only sui generis regional label register, managed by Wine Australia, covers wine alone. There is no parallel scheme for crops like rice, unlike the EU’s broad system under Regulation (No 1151/2012).
Read Also: Supreme Court condemns harassment of girl linked to CJP protest
Because the appropriate channel was missing, India opted for the certification route, not out of preference but due to the limited toolbox in those markets.
The EU case followed a different path, invoking the regional label provisions of Regulation (No 1151/2012). The correct test there is the link between terroir and reputation, leading to a prolonged procedural battle rather than an immediate dismissal.
India’s own statutes keep the two regimes separate. The Geographical Indications Act of 1999 and the Trade Marks Act of the same year were drafted together to ensure that a regional label does not have to meet the distinctiveness requirement of a brand mark. Section 25 of the former lets the trade‑marks registrar block a sign that misleads consumers about origin.
A pending dispute in Madhya Pradesh over thirteen districts, still before the Madras High Court after the Supreme Court’s 2021 remand, concerns only the demarcation of the regional label. It does not involve the distinctiveness question at all.
Three takeaways emerge. First, in common‑law jurisdictions without a dedicated regional label register, pursuing a certification brand when the term is used internationally is likely self‑defeating. Second, any EU challenge must be framed in terms of reputation and terroir, not market share. Third, India cannot solidify its reputation claim abroad until the domestic demarcation issue is resolved.
The Basmati controversy illustrates how the choice of legal instrument shapes outcomes more than the underlying rivalry between nations.
