Background
The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), India’s statutory body for basmati, applied in 2019 to register BASMATI as a certification trade mark in Australia, both as a word and as a logo. The Registrar refused under section 177 of the Trade Marks Act 1995.
On review in December 2022, a delegate maintained the refusal for the word but accepted the logo. APEDA appealed the refusal of the word mark.
Questions before the court
- Whether the word BASMATI is capable of distinguishing rice certified by APEDA from rice that is not (section 177).
- What weight to give sales and survey evidence, the proposed certification rules and conditions, and the status of basmati as a geographical indication.
Decision
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered APEDA to pay the Registrar’s costs: “I am not satisfied that the certification trade mark BASMATI is capable of distinguishing goods certified by APEDA from goods not so certified.”
The court’s reasoning
- It was agreed that basmati rice is grown in both India and Pakistan, and the court accepted that sales of Pakistani basmati in Australia are substantial.
- Large sales of Indian basmati did not make the word distinctive of APEDA certification, because the same word is used for uncertified Pakistani rice. Survey evidence showed an association with India, not a certification function.
- The test looks at the mark itself. Proposed rules and conditions, including “Product of India” labelling and a condition preserving Pakistani use, did not change how consumers understand the word.
- TRIPS obligations do not widen section 177, and recognition of basmati as a geographical indication in several countries did not meet the test for a mark covering rice certified under one country’s scheme.
What this means in practice
Provisions and authorities
Laws and rules
- Trade Marks Act 1995 (Australia): sections 169 to 171, 176 and 177
- TRIPS Agreement: Article 22
Cases referred to
- Republic of Peru v. Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791
- Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v. Modena Trading Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 48
- Clark Equipment Co v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511
Source
Read the judgment on the Federal Court of Australia website ↗
This summary is general information, not legal advice. It may not reflect later appeals or changes in the law. Read the full judgment and take advice on your own facts. Checked on 25 October 2026.
Discuss your matter with us
Tell us what you need. We will confirm receipt and keep you updated at every stage.
Our comment