INFRINGEMENT OF PLANT VARIETIES – Meaning of Infringement (Section 64)

---

INFRINGEMENT OF PLANT VARIETIES – 

Meaning of Infringement (Section 64)

Infringement occurs when any person, without the permission of the breeder or registered owner, performs acts that violate the exclusive rights granted under the Act. A registered variety is a legal property right. Any unauthorized commercial use amounts to infringement.

A person is said to infringe a registered plant variety if he does the following acts without authorization:

1. Selling or marketing the registered variety
   If a person sells, offers for sale, distributes, stores, exports or imports a registered variety without permission.

2. Using the denomination (name) of a protected variety dishonestly
   Using a denomination that is identical or deceptively similar creates confusion and amounts to infringement.

3. Producing, reproducing or propagating the registered variety
   Unauthorized multiplication, propagation or any activity that enables reproduction of a registered variety is infringement.

4. Using or distributing propagating material for commercial purposes
   Commercial use of seeds, cuttings, tubers, grafts, or any propagating material of a registered variety without consent.

5. Creating and using an Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) without permission
   If EDV is created by deriving genetics from a protected variety, the breeder's authorization is mandatory.

---

WHAT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT

The Act clearly protects certain activities which are not considered infringement:

1. Farmers’ Rights (Section 39)
   Farmers can save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce including seeds of a protected variety, provided it is not sold as branded seed.

2. Researchers’ Rights (Section 30)
   Use of a variety for research, experiment, education and development of new varieties is permitted.

3. Use for creating a new variety
   A breeder may use a registered variety for developing a new variety except when repeated use is necessary.

---

REMEDIES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT

The Act provides civil, criminal and administrative remedies to protect breeders’ rights.

A. Civil Remedies (Section 66)

1. Injunctions
   The court may grant temporary or permanent injunction restraining the infringer from selling, producing, marketing or using the protected variety or its denomination.

2. Damages or Account of Profits
   The court may order the infringer to pay monetary compensation for loss suffered or to hand over profits earned from infringement.

3. Seizure and Destruction of Infringing Material
   The court may order delivery-up, forfeiture or destruction of seeds, propagating material or packaging used in infringement.

4. Costs of Legal Proceedings
   Compensation for litigation expenses may also be awarded.

---

B. Criminal Remedies (Sections 70 to 71)

The Act imposes criminal penalties to discourage dishonest use of protected varieties.

Punishable acts include:

1. Applying false denomination.
2. Selling seeds with a false or misleading denomination.
3. Falsely representing a variety as registered.

Penalties include:

• Imprisonment between 3 months to 2 years
• Fine between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5,00,000
• Both imprisonment and fine in aggravated cases

---

C. Administrative Remedies

The Registrar of Plant Varieties may take administrative actions such as:

1. Cancellation of registration (Section 34)
2. Issuing directions to prevent misuse
3. Impounding propagating material involved in infringement

---

BURDEN OF PROOF (Section 68)

If a person is found in possession of a substantial quantity of propagating material of a registered variety, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful acquisition or authority for such possession.

---

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

1. Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019, Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court clarified that issues relating to plant varieties and their infringement must be decided under the PPV&FR Act, which is a special law. Patent law does not override plant variety protection.

Significance: The PPV&FRA is the primary legislation for breeder rights and infringement matters.

2. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Farmers (2021, Gujarat High Court)

PepsiCo alleged infringement of its registered potato variety (FL-2027). The court held that farmers’ rights under Section 39 allow them to save, use and exchange seeds. PepsiCo later withdrew the claims.

Significance: Farmers’ rights act as a complete defence against infringement claims.

3. Proagro Seeds Co. v. Monsanto (Delhi High Court, 2002)

The court observed that registration grants exclusive rights to breeders to produce and market the variety, and unauthorized use by others amounts to infringement.

Significance: Reaffirmed breeder’s exclusive rights.

---

CONCLUSION

The PPV&FRA balances the interests of breeders and farmers. Infringement provisions ensure that breeders’ innovations are protected, while farmers and researchers enjoy important exemptions. Remedies under the Act include civil injunctions, compensation, criminal penalties and administrative actions, making the enforcement structure comprehensive and effective.

---