Geographical Indications: India’s PGI application for ‘Basmati’.

In accordance with EU Regulation No. 1151/2012, India's protected geographical indication (PGI) application for "Basmati" was published by the European Commission (EC) on September 11, 2020. (Regulation). While the provenance of basmati has been disputed inside India, other nations on the Indian subcontinent disagree. Here, we highlight two crucial issues that spark broader GI scholarship discussions. What criteria will India need to meet and how are GI claims for goods having a cross-border origin handled first? Second, what is India's goal in defending Basmati on the EU market, and is GI protection an effective tactic?

Since 2016, basmati has been a registered geographical indication in India, however, only seven states are able to do so with their output. Due to Madhya Pradesh's continuous and frequently denied claim to be considered a producer, the origin of basmati in India is a subject of debate. The EU's 2004 agreement with India and Pakistan, APEDA's own observations in the "Sir Basmati" trademark dispute before the CJEU (APEDA is the registered proprietor of Basmati in India), and a number of scholarly works all acknowledge that Pakistan shares the reputation and origin of Basmati outside of India.

In light of this, it may be difficult to demonstrate that "the geographical area" described in Article 8 of the Regulation is restricted to India. Article 10 read in conjunction with Articles 5(2) and 7, demands the applicant establish a proper linkage between the quality, reputation, and other characteristics of the GI - in this case, Basmati - and its geographical origin, which is another intriguing ground relevant for the current dispute and potential opposition. One choice is to submit an application in accordance with Article 49 of the Regulation for nations seeking protection in several EU member states.

This makes it possible for multiple nations, whether EU members or not, to jointly request protection in the EU internal market. There are numerous instances of such international goods. But, these nations' diplomatic ties are stronger than those between India and Pakistan, which makes it challenging to file a joint application in this situation. Since 2005, attempts to start a joint registration for Basmati have been unsuccessful. In reality, producer organizations have taken steps to oppose GI rights in both countries.

The goals of India's protection campaign in the EU market are clear to see. The main markets for Indian basmati exports are Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the Middle East. Since 2017, exports to the EU have decreased as a result of their inability to adhere to the more stringent pesticide rules of the EU. India, like many other nations, is drawn in by the prospect of earning a fair price and expanding exports to the European market, despite the anticipated economic and socioeconomic effects of a GI registration generally and in the EU. Yet it's important to consider how non-EU GI goods perform on the EU market.

According to the e-Ambrosia database (the EU's GI Registry), only 35 GIs from non-EU nations were registered as of September 2020, compared to 3349 EU GIs. This is because to the "uphill battle" that registering Asian GIs in the EU entails, which calls for nations to address pending trademark disputes. This in turn is controllable if producer associations actively protect their interests, as seen by APEDA's role in the Sir Basmati issue. In fact, a significant success factor for GIs is organized collective action (a bottom-up approach) by the producers, and experts advise local communities to be involved in administering the GI.

For those who are familiar with the difficulties GI goods with international origins face, the case's outcome is intriguing. Pisco is another example, which Chile and Peru both claim as their own on the international stage. Pisco is now protected by the EC as a PGI (Peru) and a PDO, putting an end to these allegations (Chile). We'll have to wait and see if this works with Basmati as well. A bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan that would lead to a joint application, like in the case of Chilean Pisco, is currently off the table, which is unfortunate.