New Zealand and Kenyan courts have rejected India’s attempts to claim exclusive rights over Basmati rice using WTO’s TRIPS provisions.
New Zealand and Kenyan courts have rejected India’s attempt to secure exclusive marketing rights for Basmati rice by resorting to WTO. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. In separate decisions issued last month, both courts agreed that TRIPS cannot be used to claim Geographical Indication (GI) Safety unless the product meets the domestic legal requirements of each country.
The New Zealand High Court and Kenya’s Court of Appeal rejected appeals by APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) challenging earlier decisions which had refused trademark recognition for India’s Basmati rice.
APEDA demands registration of “Basmati” as certification trademark under the Trade Marks Act in New Zealand, claiming that Basmati already has a GI tag under Indian law. In Kenya, it objected to the registration of trademarks of six rice varieties containing the word basmatiArguing that TRIPS obliges signatory countries to prevent misuse of GIs.
‘No TRIPS obligation to implement GIs of other countries’
new zealand High Court gave this decision When trips agreement While the WTO obliges members to prevent misleading origin claims, it does not mandate enforcement of geographical indications granted by other countries if they do not align with domestic law. New Zealand law already prohibits misleading claims about the origin of a product under the Fair Trading Act, making additional protection unnecessary.
The court upheld The decision of the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to reject the 2024 application confirms that Basmati is not uniquely associated with India. The judge said that the “Basmati producing area” extends across both India and Pakistan, making an exclusive right for Indian producers inappropriate. The court clarified that New Zealand consumers view “Basmati” as a descriptive term for a type of aromatic, long-grain rice, and not as a designation for rice grown specifically in India.
APEDA had initially filed the application in February 2019 seeking exclusive rights to the name Basmati. However, in July 2024, IPONZ rejected the request, citing a lack of distinctiveness required under New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act.
TRIPS is not self-executing
kenyan the courts Ruled that TRIPS is a self-executing treaty in kenya and does not automatically apply unless incorporated into domestic law. Kenya’s Trade Marks Act already implements TRIPS obligations by allowing GIs to be registered as a collective or certification mark.
The court said that allowing direct implementation of TRIPS without following national procedures would circumvent the country’s legislative framework.
global implications
These decisions highlight the ongoing challenge India faces in securing special international protection for Basmati. While India holds the GI tag domestically, Basmati cultivation is widespread in both India and Pakistan, and many global courts view the term as descriptive rather than geographically specific.
These decisions are also important for global rice trade dynamics. Pakistan’s rice industry welcomed New Zealand’s decision, saying it strengthens the country’s legitimacy as a basmati producer and strengthens its position in future international GI disputes.
For India, the setbacks in New Zealand, Kenya and earlier Australia indicate the need for a recalibrated global strategy. Experts say India will need to pursue bilateral agreements or adopt more flexible certification rules to align with various international IP regimes.
As competition for premium rice markets intensifies, these decisions Similar basmati-origin disputes could affect other markets.
