- NZ High Court rules basmati rice is not exclusive to India
- India’s efforts to gain IP protection for basmati face setback
In a landmark ruling on 30 October 2025, the New Zealand High Court dismissed India’s appeal to register the term “basmati” as a certification trademark. This judgement upheld the decision of the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to reject the application, confirming that basmati is not uniquely tied to India. The court clarified that New Zealand consumers perceive “basmati” as a descriptive term for a type of aromatic, long-grain rice, not as a designation for rice exclusively grown in India.
Court rejects exclusive Indian rights to “basmati”
India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) had initially filed the application in February 2019, seeking exclusive rights to the basmati name. However, in July 2024, IPONZ rejected the request, citing the lack of distinctiveness required under New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act. The certification rules proposed by APEDA also failed to meet the statutory requirements.
When the appeal was heard in the High Court, Justice Boldt ruled that granting APEDA’s request would unfairly bar Pakistani producers who cultivate basmati from marketing their rice under the same name. The judge noted that the “Basmati Growing Area” extends across both India and Pakistan, making an exclusive right for Indian producers unjustified.
Global implications for basmati rice market
This decision highlights a key tension in the international rice trade. While basmati is culturally and historically significant in India, its production is not confined to the country. By rejecting India’s bid for exclusive certification, New Zealand allows other basmati-producing countries, especially Pakistan, to continue using the term.
For Indian exporters and APEDA, this ruling is a setback in their efforts to gain international intellectual property protection for basmati. Experts suggest that this may complicate India’s broader strategy of securing geographical indication (GI)-style protection in other global markets.
Pakistan welcomes outcome
Pakistan’s rice sector has welcomed the ruling, with industry leaders emphasising that the court’s decision reinforces Pakistan’s legitimacy as a producer of basmati rice. The ruling could provide momentum to their ongoing efforts to secure similar protections in other legal jurisdictions.
Legal, trade context
The court’s judgement also reflects broader international intellectual property norms. Justice Boldt referred to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, noting that while the agreement obliges WTO members to prevent misleading origin claims, it does not mandate the enforcement of geographical indications granted by other countries if they do not align with domestic law.
Additionally, the court rejected APEDA’s argument that additional labelling could distinguish Indian basmati from other rice varieties. For a term to qualify as a certification mark, it must be inherently distinctive and cannot rely on explanatory wording to clarify ambiguity.
Outlook
This ruling could influence similar Basmati-origin disputes in other markets. India has previously faced setbacks in Australia and Kenya, where courts and trademark offices ruled that “basmati” cannot be exclusively associated with Indian production.
For APEDA and Indian stakeholders, this may lead to a strategic reassessment of their approach. As experts have noted, India’s GI efforts for basmati will need to align not just with domestic heritage but also with global trade and intellectual property frameworks.
For Pakistan and other basmati-producing nations, this verdict strengthens their position for fair participation in international markets under the shared “basmati” label. This could reshape competitive dynamics in the global aromatic rice trade.
Leave a Reply