Following disputes over use of the name ‘champagne’ and then ‘manuka honey,’ now it is the turn of basmati rice with India seeking to have sales of Pakistan’s basmati rice blocked in New Zealand.
New Zealand imports over one thousand tonnes of basmati rice each year, primarily from India and Pakistan.
Back in 2019, India’s Ministry of Commerce made Trade Marks Act application to register a certification trade mark for basmati rice. If approved, only basmati rice produced in India could be sold in New Zealand.
India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) said registration of ‘basmati’ in New Zealand is needed to identify its product as having recognised quality standards.
Consumers see Trade Marks Act certification marks every day, having little understanding of their origin: the “Made in New Zealand’ symbol; the ‘Woolmark’ symbol; the Heart Foundation’s ‘tick’ symbol.
This certification has economic value, making promises as to a product’s source and/or quality.
Owner of a certification mark can block suppliers using the mark in New Zealand without permission.
A legal campaign by French winegrowers now sees use of the word ‘champagne’ in respect of wine applying only to product produced in a specific region of France using specific grape varieties, excluding competitors in New Zealand from using the same name.
New Zealand honey producers were not so successful in attempts to claim monopoly rights to manuka honey products. The name ‘manuka honey’ is descriptive, but not distinctive to New Zealand alone. The same product is produced in Australia from its own native flora.
India’s APEDA application claiming a certification mark for its basmati rice was unsuccessful; it faced the same legal issue as manuka honey.
Basmati rice is a type of rice, not distinctive to India alone.
APEDA appealed Trade Mark office refusal of certification.
In the High Court, Justice Boldt offered APEDA the opportunity to amend its application to allow basmati rice from Pakistan to also use the basmati name in New Zealand.
APEDA indicated that it might allow ‘legitimate’ Pakistan suppliers to use the name to describe its product when sold in New Zealand.
This concession was insufficient, Justice Boldt ruled.
APEDA’s application was dismissed.
Across the Tasman, the Australian Trade Mark office has refused APEDA’s similar application for basmati trade mark certification.
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority v. Commissioner of Trade Marks – High Court (30.10.25)
25.225