“We agree with Taufiq Ahmed Khan that this move by India is an intentional act to damage Pakistan which also exports basmati rice to Sri Lanka,” said Hasan Irfan Khan, attorney at law at United Trademark & Patent Services in Lahore. “This is because India is well aware that basmati is a GI of Pakistan, or at least both countries claim joint ownership. Therefore, still claiming exclusive ownership through registration is clearly an act to damage Pakistani exports of basmati.”
For Govind, Taufiq Ahmed Khan’s comments are political.
“I do not agree with these kinds of comments,” he said.
Govind further explained: “Indeed, Pakistan also contributes a significant amount in the export of basmati rice. India enacted Geographical Indication Act, 1999 after the RiceTec case. Pakistan was also opposing the RiceTec patent but they enacted Geographical Indication Act in the year 2020. After this enactment, Pakistan has obtained exclusive GI for their basmati rice but earlier, EUIPO has held that basmati belongs to both India and Pakistan. Consequently, India, in order to safeguard its IP rights, has to apply for trademark/GI wherever India supplies basmati rice otherwise India will lose its international market including exclusive right just because some other country applied for IP rights prior to India. The move of India is to protect the interest of the nation, the farmer who grows different varieties of basmati rice and the IP rights associated with it.”