Blog

The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) has recently garnered attention with its decision to reject the Government of India’s certification application for the “BASMATI” word mark. This decision, based on the acknowledgment that rice growers outside of India also have legitimate rights to use the term, underscores the complexities surrounding geographical indications (GIs) in international trade.

“Basmati” refers to a fragrant long-grain rice variety traditionally grown in the Indian subcontinent, renowned for its unique aroma and texture. The Government of India has long sought to protect this term to safeguard its cultural and economic significance. However, the IPONZ decision highlights that other rice-producing nations, notably Pakistan, also cultivate and market Basmati rice, thereby complicating the claim for exclusive rights.

The Government of India argued for exclusive rights to the “Basmati” mark based on its historical and cultural association with Indian agriculture and cuisine, emphasising that Basmati rice is integral to India’s identity and global brand. They stressed the importance of protecting the term to preserve its cultural heritage and economic value.

However, IPONZ’s decision revealed that the evidence provided showed significant contributions from other rice-producing countries, particularly Pakistan. The recognition of Pakistan’s legitimate rights to use the term “Basmati” was a critical factor in IPONZ’s ruling. This decision highlights the necessity for a nuanced approach to GI protections that considers the historical and cultural contributions of multiple regions.

The decision is expected to spark discussions and potential legal challenges concerning the ownership and protection of GIs. The Trade Development Authority of Pakistan has also applied for its own certification to protect its rights, indicating that the debate over Basmati rice is far from over.

IPONZ’s denial of India’s application for the “Basmati” word mark underscores the intricate nature of GI protections and the need for balanced approaches that respect the rights of all producers. This case is a vital reminder of the importance of equitable recognition in international trade, ensuring that cultural and economic heritage is fairly represented and protected.