While the vast majority of what I get to read about when it comes to intellectual property law generally, and trademark law specifically, makes me roll my eyes, the concept of geographic indicator trademarks actually isn’t one of them. The application of GI marks certainly does get my fur up often times, but the concept as laid out by WIPO, for instance, really doesn’t.
A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In order to function as a GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given place.
This speaks directly to the concept of trademark law, generally speaking. Trademarks are designed to do two things, primarily. First, to inform the buying public as to the source of a good or service. Second, to protect against knockoffs of trademark-protected products from tarnishing the reputation of those protected products due to poor quality of the knockoffs. For instance, “Swiss made” watches have a geographic indicator mark, which means that you can’t say your watch is Swiss made unless it was, you know, made in Switzerland. That seems reasonable.
Which brings us to basmati rice. This rice variant has its origins hundreds of years ago in India. India has been trying to get GI marks on the term “basmati” in the same annoying way as France has for “champagne” for years now, but has been denied both in Australia and, more recently, in New Zealand.
The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) has turned down the Government of India’s application for the GI trademark of basmati rice. New Zealand has cited reasons for rejecting India’s trademark application, mainly due to the farming and production of basmati rice beyond the Indian region. (1). The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), also recognised as Indian authorities for the protection and registration of Indian exports, filed the trademark application to the relevant countries. The authorities have also previously failed to trademark ‘BASMATI’ in Australia.
So here we have to separate two things. It’s true that basmati rice originated from India. But when the buying public worldwide, or in New Zealand in this case, buys basmati rice, the question is whether they do so believing the rice itself came from India or if they suffer in the quality of the product when it does not. And the answer according to the New Zealand government to those questions is a resounding “no.” There don’t appear to be any real allegations that the quality of the product is meaningful when we’re talking about the basmati variety grown in other countries. And there are several countries that have their own lengthy history of growing the variant.
Both New Zealand and Australia governments rejected India’s trademark or GI application on related grounds, citing the basmati rice as ‘not only grown in India’ or similar. IPONZ stated that basmati rice is produced in multiple rice-producing countries, including Pakistan, considered second after India in basmati rice production. IPONZ decided India’s application demonstrated contributions from neighbouring countries to the basmati rice market. On these grounds IPONZ refused to grant exclusive rights of the term ‘BASMATI’ to the Indian authorities. Although, India has a 100-year history of basmati rice farming as compared to Pakistan’s 75-year history. Moreover, The Trade Development Authority of Pakistan had also applied for the ‘BASMATI’ trademark certification late last year to protect its rights, the case is still pending. IPONZ recently issued its decision declining the Government of India’s certification application for the BASMATI word mark, citing the existence of rice growers outside of India who also have a right to use the term.
It isn’t only Pakistan that exports basmati rice, actually. Variants are also grown in Indonesia, Kenya, and even in the United States. And if your average New Zealander isn’t at the store buying basmati rice under the assumption that it was grown in India, then a GI trademark simply isn’t warranted.
This has the looks of a country trying to rewind the clock and take ownership of a cultural item that long emigrated outside of its borders. Perhaps there was a time in the past where a GI mark for basmati would have made some sense. In 2024, however, it very much does not.
