New Zealand Joins Australia In Denying Geographical Indicator Trademark For ‘Basmati Rice’
from the GI-tract dept
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.
Filed Under: australia, basmati rice, geographical indication, iponz, new zealand, trademark
Comments on “New Zealand Joins Australia In Denying Geographical Indicator Trademark For ‘Basmati Rice’”
I think another question is whether we even have another name for this stuff. It’s not like the packages have been saying “Basmati®-brand [descriptor] rice”. What is the generic name for the class of product “Basmati” might be a brand for? Seriously, does anyone know a name other than “basmati” that would describe rice of that type?
With kleenexes, for example, there’s a company running around saying we should be calling them “facial tissues” or whatever. Which is ridiculous, but they’ve at least been consistent about that. And I guess France wants us to call champagne “sparkling wine” or “vin effervescent”, even though it’s mostly trivia nerds who’d know that the drink’s normal name originally referred to a place.
Re:
“I think another question is whether we even have another name for this stuff.”
Rice from India?
Re: Re:
I’m not sure if that’s a joke or not. People in India grow and export various types of rice that aren’t basmati. And, as is the point of this story, people outside India grow basmati rice.
Re:
I just drink the stuff from Italy and call it prosecco.
Re:
(Warning: pedantry ahead)
My approach: when writing in English, Champagne with a capital ‘C’ is the place, or the wine originating there. (Which includes wines not made by the méthode champenoise: Bouzy is a very nice Champagne that is still, not sparkling, and red, not white.) With a lower-case letter, ‘champagne’ in English tends to refer to any sparkling white wine, and has become generic through long usage.
When writing in French, proper nouns are capitalised but proper adjectives are not, but there’s the vocabulary to describe wines properly. I wouldn’t be tempted to write champagne when what I mean is vin blanc pétillant.
Prosecco is made from a different variety of grape and is not actually that similar in taste to most Champagnes. At least it’s a generic term, and was largely introduced because ‘Asti’ is denominazione di origine controllata.
I think the argument could be advanced that growing bhaat basmati anywhere but Bihar is cultural appropriation, but the rest of India committed that appropriation a very long time ago and so India-as-a-whole is a fine one to talk.
Re: Re:
People can advance whatever ridiculous arguments they like, but you’re on a site where people frequently say that copying is not theft. People don’t own ideas like this, nor should they, and nothing is being taken away from anyone by calling a thing by its accurate name—assuming that the rice grown elsewhere is genetically identical to what’s grown in Bihar.
If anything, it’s the Indian government trying to take something away from people.
Re: Re: Re:
And where did ke9tv make any argument that goes against what you just said?
Re: Re: Re:2
They didn’t, and nobody said they did. They merely referenced the argument being responded to, hence the blockquote of that text.
Re: Re: Re:3
You… really didn’t see the implication made in the comment objected to, did you?
What is far less reasonable, however, is that you can’t say a watch made in a different country with the exact same design is “Swiss style,” which is completely fucking ridiculous, IMHO. I mean, honestly, what exactly is that position protecting?
Re:
Does the Swiss Army even use that knife?
Re: Re:
Depends which knife. They do use Victorinox knives, but they don’t have a red plastic cover — the military-issue ones have fewer gadgets and a textured aluminium cover. And the stainless steel used is a different grade than in the consumer product.
Re:
Even the stated example seems wrong to me. Timothy implies that “Swiss made” is equivalent to “made in Switzerland”, but the first wording is actually ambiguous. It would also be reasonable to say that for something made elsewhere, by someone holding Swiss citizenship, for example. And people could get into arguments about edge cases; what if the maker used to hold that citizenship, or was raised there but never acquired it, or has ancestors from there, or is only a permanent resident? What if the factory is outside Switzerland but owned by a company registered in Switzerland?
Which is exactly why the normal wording for a geographic origin label is “made in”. Maybe made in Switzerland by cheap immigrant labor, working for an American company using Chinese parts, but hey.
Re: Re:
“Swiss made” indeed means only “made in Switzerland” under the GI trademark law. Clearly ridiculous, especially in light of the examples you give, but there it is.
At least Champagne is a place that makes it.
Technically there is a village of Basmatiya but the application wasn’t asking to label only rice from there.
Re:
I doubt many people knew about the geographic origin of the name. They might expect basmati to be from India the same way people expect bananas to be from Costa Rica or Ecuador—which is to say that if it’s not from there, nobody is surprised.
There’s an English village called Cheddar, too, after which the cheese is named. I guess Basmatiya is in the same situation: worldwide demand exceeds, by far, the amount of the product that the named area could ever hope to produce.
Re: Re:
I wonder how many people from India consume sandwiches….
Re: Re: Re:
Depends on if you consider using naan or roti to scoop food a sandwich. If yes, than a whole lot.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sounds like an open sandwich to me.
Re: Re: It's not even named after the town.
The rice evolved in NW India and Pakistan, and Basmatiya is in the east.
They might be both related to the Sanskrit word for fragrant.
Which makes it even more of a descriptor than a geographic indicator.
Hanover tomatoes?
New York minute?
…2 of my favorites.
Re:
It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to complain about those.
Complications from the British Empire
Presumably, basmati rice was grown in Pakistan before 1947, when it was part of India.
Re:
Also presumably, it was grown in the region before there was an “India”, which is also a CBE.
The mere fact that governments are asking for trademarks just gets them a big fucking “no” from me. Get rekt.
Re:
I agree wholeheartedly, with one exception. If Iceland wanted their food back, I would totally approve.
Re: Re:
“Protectionism” takes on a whole new meaning.
Try basmati rice from India and compare it to basmati rice from Pakistan or Nepal. Can you tell the difference? If not, this is a lot of fuss over nothing.
Anyway didn’t Pakistan used to BE India? You can’t blame the rice for that.
Basmati in NZ
As a service to the commentariat I went to look at my current packet of NZ-bought basmati rice. Interestingly, it doesn’t explicitly say which country it’s from. It says Product of Punjab, but both Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan grow the rice. A bit more investigation shows that it comes from India.