India’s bid to have exclusive selling rights in Australia over the Basmati rice name has failed. The appeal made by the Agricultural and processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) was dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia. But what does that mean? The ruling clearly states that Punjab’s or Haryana’s rice exporters will have to share the Australian rice market with the Pakistan’s Rice competitors. However, it’s also important to note that India’s Basmati Rice export portion to Australian market is over 40% that is much higher than Pakistani counterparts.
The ruling comes at a time when Basmati Rice exporters from Punjab and Haryana are also looking to expand into alternative overseas markets, amid uncertainty over shipments through Iran’s Strait of Hormuz.
What did the Australian federal court decide?
This ruling by the Federal corut of Australia, states that the term Basmati cannot be used to tell apart rice certified by APEDA from Basmati rice grown and sold by countries, like Pakistan. Along with this, the ruling also directs APEDA to pay the respondent’s legal costs. This recent ruling uploads an earlier decision to reject APEDA’s appeal made to the Australian Registrar of Trade Marks in 2022.
To conclude, this appeal was rejected because of the large use of the term ‘Basmati’. And giving it a trademark certification is like giving trademark certification to term ‘champagne’, which is largely used and can be produced anywhere in the world with right raw materials. On similar basis, the term ‘Basmati’ is grown across the parts of India and Pakistan, so it won’t be fair in the eyes of Australia to give India its trademark certification in Australia’s rice market.
Why did India seek a basmati rice trademark in Australia?
Australia is one of the most important overseas market for India’s Basmati Rice. If we look at the past. From 1988 to Aug 2018, an estimate of 306,095 tonnes (USD 380 million dollars) have been sold from India to Australian retail outlets. And more recenty, India has exported 72,500 tonnes in less than a year to Australia, which was valued at about INR 735 crore.
Looking at those numbers, and the fact that Basmati rice enjoys Geographical Indication status APEDA was hopeful and filed its first trademark application in 2019. However, Australian trademark office diagreed and held that Basmati rice is not exclusively grown and Pakistan’s exporters also have an equally legitimate claim to that term.
India vs Pakistan: Basmati Rice Sales In Australia (1988 to Aug 2018)
| Country | Estimated Value |
| India | US$ 380 million |
| Pakistan | US$ 44.12 million |
So even though India is having such an exponential and historical retail value for Basmati rice in Australian market than Pakistan’s, this court ruling removes India’s chance for exclusive selling rights over Basmati rice going forward.
Why does this ruling matter for Punjab?
Punjab and Haryana are the main Basmati Rice growing and exporting regions of India. Punjab’s farmers and millers depend heavily on steady overseas demand, and Australia has been seen as a market with room to grow. Losing exclusive certification means Indian exporters cannot stop Pakistani-origin rice from carrying the Basmati Rice label in Australian stores.
And such ruling by the Federal court of Australia, feels like an uncertainty in a growing market like Australia. This adds pressure on farmers and exporters who were counting on stronger legal protection abroad.
Ranjit Singh Jossan, vice president of the Basmati Exporters Association, said the ruling was a setback but not the end of the road. “The recent Australian court decision is certainly a challenge, but the primary focus must remain on protecting the rights and interests of Basmati farmers,” he said, as quoted in a Hindustan Times report by Gurpreet Singh Nibber in August 2026.
He added that Basmati Rice is India’s agricultural heritage, built over generations by farmers. Jossan said the industry must now strengthen the identity of Indian-origin Basmati Rice through quality control, traceability, authenticity and responsible branding in international markets. He noted that millers and exporters also have a role in protecting and promoting its identity.
Another exporter, quoted in the same report, said the ruling means Indian exporters will not hold an exclusive position in the Australian market. “We will be competing with Pakistani exporters in Australia,” the exporter said.
Exporters have indicated they are still ready to work with APEDA to strengthen certification, branding and market protection, in order to secure better returns for Basmati Rice growers.
What has been the global battle over basmati rice recognition?
The Australia case is not India’s first setback in trying to secure exclusive rights over the Basmati Rice name abroad. India has previously faced similar difficulties in New Zealand and Kenya. In the European Union, India’s application for GI recognition of Basmati Rice has been pending since July 2018.
Timeline Of The Basmati Rice Trademark Dispute In Australia
- July 2018: India applies for Geographical Indication status for Basmati Rice in the European Union. That application remains pending.
- 2019: APEDA files a certification trademark application for Basmati Rice in Australia.
- December 2022: The Australian Registrar of Trade Marks rejects APEDA’s application, holding that Basmati Rice is not grown exclusively in India.
- 2023 onwards: APEDA challenges the rejection before the Federal Court of Australia and seeks a fresh hearing.
- August 12, 2026: The Federal Court of Australia dismisses APEDA’s appeal, leaving Indian exporters without exclusive certification rights for Basmati Rice in the Australian market.
What happens next for India’s exporters?
With courtroom options in Australia effectively closed for now, Punjab’s Basmati Rice exporters are expected to shift focus toward branding and quality assurance rather than legal exclusivity. And for now building consumer trust around Indian-origin Rice, through traceability and certification standards, may matter more than trademark battles in markets where GI protection is hard to secure.
For Punjab and Haryana’s farming community, the coming months will show whether stronger branding can offset the loss of exclusive trademark protection in Australia.