The dispute traces back to October 2009, when Krish Commodities Limited filed six trademark applications: Wali Basmati Rice, Rouz Basmati Rice, Pilau Basmati Rice, Nawab Basmati Rice, Rajah Basmati Rice and Al-Hannan Basmati Rice.
In 2010, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) lodged notices of opposition before the Registrar of Trademarks.
It argued that ‘Basmati’ is a geographical indication (GI) referring to a distinctive long-grain aromatic rice cultivated in specific regions of India and Pakistan.
APEDA further contended that registration of these trademarks in Kenya would be misleading to consumers and unfairly exploit the reputation associated with Basmati rice. The Registrar of Trademarks dismissed the oppositions, finding that APEDA had failed to establish any proprietary rights in Kenya or to prove that the use of ‘Basmati’ in the composite trademarks would mislead consumers.
The High Court upheld the registrar’s decision in 2017 but went further in two important respects. First, it clarified that APEDA’s status as a statutory authority in India, charged with promoting agricultural exports, does not in itself confer proprietary or enforceable rights in Kenya.
Second, it observed that, at the time APEDA filed its opposition, ‘Basmati’ had not yet been registered as a geographical indication even in India, further weakening the agency’s claim to exclusive rights abroad. These additions provided greater legal and factual depth to the registrar’s findings and underscored the challenge of asserting cross-border GI rights without domestic recognition.
The Court of Appeal has now affirmed that outcome, maintaining that APEDA lacked a legal basis under Kenyan law to prevent registration.
The key issue for consideration was whether, under Kenyan law and Kenya’s international obligations, particularly the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), ‘Basmati’ qualifies as a geographical indication, and if so, whether its use in composite trade marks can be barred without prior domestic registration or recognition.
The Court of Appeal has now affirmed that outcome, maintaining that APEDA lacked a legal basis under Kenyan law to prevent registration.
The key issue for consideration was whether, under Kenyan law and Kenya’s international obligations, particularly the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), ‘Basmati’ qualifies as a geographical indication, and if so, whether its use in composite trade marks can be barred without prior domestic registration or recognition.
© Copyright 2025 The SSResource Media.
All rights reserved.