Not long ago, I posted about Republic of Peru (Peruvian State) v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791, where the Federal Court decided PISCO was registrable as a certification trade mark, to be owned by the Republic of Peru, even though PISCO also comes from Chile. (See: 8 years of negotiations or a Federal Court case: both could leave a (pisco) sour taste in your mouth – Tarr Law)
The same Federal Court has now issued its decision in Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 1125, refusing registration of BASMATI as a certification trade mark filed by the Government of India, as BASMATI rice also comes from Pakistan.
Justice Dowling makes pains to explain that the decisions are not inconsistent. Partly he says this is because Chile exports far less PISCO to Australia than Pakistan exports BASMATI to Australia. But, he also says that the reason PISCO was registrable and BASMATI was not, is because PISCO is a town on Peru’s southern coast, close to vineyards where grapes used to make pisco are grown. He says “Here, unlike PISCO, the BASMATI mark is not a geographical name for a specific place from which the product in question is produced, rather it is the name of a type of rice associated with a specific growing area in India and Pakistan.”
Therefore, unlike any other circumstance, where registration of a trade mark that comprises the name of a town will be more difficult (as the owner will need to overcome a geographical distinctiveness objection), when attempting to register a certification trade mark (that is intended to act as a ‘geographic indication’ in the absence of any actual system for geographic indications in Australia yet), the fact that the trade mark comprises the name of a town will actually be an advantage.
See Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 1125 – BarNet Jade – BarNet Jade for the full decision in Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 1125.
