India Loses the Basmati Battle: BASMATHI Trade Mark Allowed in Australian Hearing

India Loses the Basmati Battle: BASMATHI Trade Mark Allowed in Australian Hearing

The word "basmati" conjures images of fragrant, long-grain rice from the foothills of the Himalayas. India's government certainly thinks so — and for good reason. But when it comes to Australian trade mark law, the question isn't whether something is geographically important; it's whether Australian consumers understand it that way. A remarkable decision in mid-2026 found that most Australian consumers think of basmati as a type of rice, not a geographical indication — and that finding had decisive consequences.

Background: Sri Lankan Rice and an Indian Government Challenge

Australasian Foods Pty Ltd is a Sri Lankan food importer that sells rice under the name "BASMATHI" — spelling the term with an "H", a common variant in Tamil-speaking communities reflecting the transliteration of the Tamil/Sanskrit word. The company applied to register BASMATHI eat healthy (with a figurative element) in Class 30 for rice and rice products.

The opponent was substantial: the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), a statutory authority of the Government of India responsible for protecting India's agricultural geographical indications. APEDA was represented by Luke Merrick KC, instructed by Corrs. They argued that BASMATI is a protected geographical indication from the Himalayan foothills region, and that allowing an Australian trade mark for BASMATHI for non-Indian rice would mislead consumers about geographical origin.

The Survey Evidence: What Australians Actually Think

A consumer survey was the centrepiece of the opposition evidence. The results were revealing — though not in the way APEDA intended:

• 78.7% of surveyed Australians said they had heard of BASMATI

• 26.8% associated BASMATI with India

• 58.1% thought a product bearing the trade mark "might be BASMATI"

• 64.1% did not associate BASMATI with any particular place

APEDA's case required showing that Australians understand BASMATI as a geographical indication — a signal of origin tied to a specific region. But the survey showed the opposite. Fewer than one-third of consumers associated it with India. Nearly two-thirds associated it with no particular place at all.

The Decision: BASMATI is a Variety Descriptor, Not a GI

Delegate Tracey Berger's analysis cut to the heart of the matter. For section 60 to succeed, APEDA needed to establish that BASMATI had a reputation as a trade mark or GI in Australia. The evidence showed something quite different: Australians understand "basmati" as a descriptor for a type or variety of rice — much like "long grain," "jasmine," or "arborio." It signals a category of product, not a product from a particular source.

This finding cascaded through the remaining grounds. If Australian consumers don't understand BASMATI as a geographical indicator of origin, then using BASMATHI doesn't create a misleading impression about geographical origin (section 42(b) fails). The "might be BASMATI" survey result was equivocal at best — it didn't establish that consumers would likely be deceived (section 43 fails).

All grounds failed. The trade mark proceeds to registration. Costs were awarded against APEDA — India, in effect, lost and paid the other side's legal costs.

The Broader Significance

This decision has implications well beyond rice labelling. It illustrates that geographical indications must be actively cultivated in each market where protection is sought. BASMATI may be a protected GI in India, and increasingly recognised in the EU, but without consistent enforcement of its GI character in Australia — combined with consumer education — the word risks being absorbed into ordinary descriptive language in this market.

Practical Takeaways

• GI protection requires market-by-market recognition. A geographical indication that is well-established in one country doesn't automatically carry the same status in another. Consumer perception in the relevant market is determinative.

• Survey evidence can hurt as much as help. If your survey reveals that most consumers don't associate your term with a particular geographical source, you've provided your opponent with powerful evidence against your own case.

• Descriptive use in commerce erodes distinctiveness. When a term — even a geographically significant one — becomes widely used as a variety or category descriptor in retail and media, trade mark law treats it accordingly.

• Linguistic variants can succeed where the original might not. BASMATHI with an H is a genuine transliteration used by Tamil-speaking communities, not a cynical attempt to copy. Context and cultural authenticity matter in trade mark proceedings.

Citation: APEDA v Australasian Foods Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 135 (17 July 2026)

Facing a trade mark issue? Contact Stellar Law for expert advice.