Copyrights Act – Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers Rights Question and Answers

The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmer’s Rights Descriptive Questions

Question 1. Farmers in developing countries particularly in India are very confused and do not understand the concept of intellectual property rights. Some people are misguiding them and creating panic and rumors that the patent law will prevent them from using seeds for cultivation. If you are an IPR expert how you will clear farmers’ doubt about the patent law that it will not affect their livelihood and still they can use the seeds for cultivation as usual?
Answer:

The law on the subject is contained in the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 where the concept of Plant Breeders’ Rights has been provided legal sanction/authority. There is undoubtedly a need to provide incentives to the Plant Breeders who are engaged in the creative work of research which sustains agricultural progress through returns on investments made in research and to persuade the researchers to share the benefits of their creativity with the society.

The issue of enacting a law relating to Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights in India assumed importance, particularly in the wake of the TRIPS agreement under WTO which seeks to promote effective protection of Intellectual Property Rights in all fields of technology.
Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement defines “Patentable subject matter” and requires member countries to provide for the protection of plant varieties whether by patenting by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.
With a view to providing for the establishment of an Authority to give an effective system of protection of the rights of plant breeders and farmers, to encourage the development of new varieties of plants, and to give effect to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, the Parliament enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Right Act, 2001.
The Act seeks to stimulate investment for research and development both in the public and private sectors for the development of new plant varieties by ensuring appropriate 13i returns on such investments. It also seeks to facilitate the growth OT the seed industry in the country through domestic and foreign investment o the availability of high-quality seeds and planting material to Ino. farmers.
It also recognizes the role of farmers as cultivators and conserves the contribution of traditional, rural, and tribal communities to the country’s agricultural biodiversity by rewarding them for their contribution through benefits and protecting the traditional rights of the farmers.
The Act also provides or sets up the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Authority to promote and develop new varieties of plants and promote the rights of the farmers and breeders.
Considering the above, it is not correct to say that the Patent Law prohibits the Farmers from using seeds (for cultivation) that are not a subject matter of grant of a right under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act, 2001.

In fact, the law is meant to provide protection to the farmers’ rights over the inventions that they are able to come up with and disclose them for the benefit of the common public at large.

Question 2. Company ABC is a biotechnology-related company. It created a new organism by doing genetic manipulation with the traditional existing organism. Advice on the patentability of such genetic manipulation.
Answer:

In 1972, Anand Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, and researcher to the General Electric Company filed a patent application in relation to a bacterium from the genus pseudomonas containing therein, at least two stable generating plasmids, each of the said plasmids providing hydrocarbon degradative pathway.
It was a man-made, genetically engineered bacterium energy separately capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil. It was asserted that because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, the invention could treat oil spills.

The patent claims were of three types:

Process claim for the method of producing the bacteria
Claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material floating on water such as straw and the new bacteria, and
Claims to the bacteria itself.

The Patent Examiner allowed the claims to fall into the first two categories but rejected the claim for bacteria. The decision rested on two grounds:

That microorganisms are products of nature, and
That as living things, they are not patentable subject matter.

Later, the Patent Office Board of Appeals reiterated the examiners’ decision on the grounds that microorganisms do not fall within the ambit of patentable subject matter since they are living things.

Besides the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals emphasized that this issue was not whether the claimed bacterium was living or inanimate but whether it constituted an invention made by human intervention.
The Court reaffirmed that the bacterium was not a handiwork of nature rather it was Charabarty’s own invention.
The four statutory categories of inventions, that can be granted patents are process, the machine, manufacture, and composition of matter. Hence, on the question as to in which category would the invention fall?
The Supreme Court held that Genetically Engineered oil-consuming bacterium could be categorized either as composition of matter manufacture.
The court read the term manufacture in accordance with its dictionary definition, to mean the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials, new forms, qualities, properties or combinations whether by hand labor or by machinery.
The court obviously turned back to the legislative intent of the drafters of the US Patent Act to ascertain the rationale behind using general terminology “any composition of matter” or “manufacture.”
According to the court, this selection of broad language suggested that the drafters’ goal was to stimulate innovation in a wide range of then unk technologies and scientific fields, a goal that would be frustrated if Co Kn°Wn was repeatedly required to amend the statute to new categories of patentable inventions.
The court observed that the legislative history of the Patent Act connotes that the patentable subject matter includes “anything under the sun that is made by man.” Chakrabarty simply shuffled genes, changing bacteria that already existed.
The widest interpretation by the court lets the broadest amplitude to patentability to the living subject matter.
After this historic decision, the US biotech industry flourished and numerous patents have been granted on human-made higher life forms such as transgenic crops, mice, fish, cows, etc.

TRI Ps supported the argument for the patenting of microorganisms in Article 27.3 of TRI Ps. It excludes two specific classes of subject matter from patentability:

Diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans and animals; and
Plants and animals other than microorganisms and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than no biological and microbiological processes.

TRIPS permits the patenting of the microorganism but does not define microorganism leaving member states to formulate their own standards relating to it. Indian Patent Act, 1970 through its Section 3 allows the patenting of microorganism and microbiological processes to be patentable.

Hence, India does not allow the patenting of microorganisms already in nature, but genetically modified versions of the same microorganism that result in enhancement of its called efficacies are patentable.

Question 3. Define the terms ‘farmer’ and ‘farmers variety’ under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. Explain the rights of the farmers envisaged under the Act briefly referring to relevant provisions.
Answer:

Section 2(k) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Ac. 2001 defines the term “Farmer” as “farmer” means any person who-

Cultivates crops by cultivating the land himself; or
cultivates crops by directly supervising the cultivation of land through any other person; or
Conserves and preserves, severally or jointly, with any other person any wild species or traditional varieties or adds value to such wild species or traditional varieties through selection and identification of their useful properties.

Section 2 (I) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 defines “Farmers Variety” as, “Farmers Variety” means a variety which-

Has been traditionally cultivated and evolved by the farmers in their fields, or
Is a wild relative or landrace of a variety about which the farmers possess common knowledge.

Farmers’ Rights: (Sections 39 to 46) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 deals with the rights of the farmers. They are as under:

Section 39 – Farmers rights.

A farmer who has bred or developed a new variety shall be entitled to registration and other protection in like manner as a breeder of a variety under this Act;
The farmers’ variety shall be entitled to registration if the application contains a declaration as specified in clause (A) of sub-section (1) of the section18;
A farmer who is engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of landraces and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation shall be entitled in the prescribed manner to recognition and reward from the Gene Fund: Provided that material so selected and preserved has been used as donors of genes in varieties registrable under this Act;
A farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, re-sow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act: Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act.

Section 40 – Certain information to be given in the application for registration; A breeder or other person making an application for registration of any variety under Chapter III shall disclose in the application the information regarding the use of genetic material conserved by any tribal or rural families in the breeding or development of such variety.

Section 41 – Rights of communities: Any person or group of persons (whether actively engaged in farming or not) or any governmental or non-governmental organization may, on behalf of any village or local community in India, file in any center notified, with the previous approval of the Central Government, by the Authority, in the Official Gazette, any claim attributable to the contribution of the people of that village or local community, as the case may be, in the evolution of any variety for the purpose of staking a claim on behalf of such village or local community.

Section 42 – Protection of innocent infringement: A right established under this Act shall not be deemed to be infringed by a farmer who at the time of such infringement was not aware of the existence of such right; and

A relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement referred to in section 65 shall not be granted by such Court, nor any cognizance of any offense under this Act shall be taken, for such infringement by any court against a fanner who proves, before such Court, that at the time of the infringement, he was not aware of the existence of the right so infringed.

Section 43 – Authorisation of farmers’ variety: Where an essentially derived variety is derived from a farmers’ variety, the authorization under sub-section (2) of section 28 shall not be given by the breeder of such farmers’ variety except with the consent of the farmers or group of farmers or community of farmers who have made a contribution in the preservation or development of such variety.

Section 44 – Exemption from fees: A farmer or group of farmers or village community shall not be liable to pay any fees in any proceeding before the Authority or Registrar or the Tribunal or the High Court under this Act or the rules made thereunder.

Section 45 – General Fund; The Central Government shall constitute a Fund to be called the National General Fund for the welfare of farmers.

Section 46 – Framing of schemes: The Central Government shall, for the purposes of section 41 and clause (d) of subsection (2) of section 45, frame, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more schemes.

Question 4. Enumerate the criteria for registration of a plant variety and the prerequisites for filing an application form for registration under the Plant Varieties Act, 2001.
Answer: For the registration of a variety under the Plant Varieties Act, 2001 following criteria must be fulfilled:

Novel: If at the date of filing an application for registration for protection, the propagating or harvested material of such variety has not been sold or otherwise disposed of in India earlier than one year or outside India, in the case of trees or vines earlier than six years, or in any other case earlier than four years, before the date of filing such application.

Distinct: A variety is said to be distinct if it is clearly distinguishable by at least one essential characteristic from any other variety whose existence is a matter of common knowledge in any country at the time of application.

Uniform: A variety is said to be uniform, if subject to the variation that may be expected from the particular features of its propagation it is sufficiently uniform in its essential characteristics.

Stable: A variety is said to be stable if its essential characteristics remain unchanged after repeated propagation or, in the case of a particular cycle of propagation, at the end of each such cycle.

Application For Registration Of A Varieties Can Be Made By:

Any person claiming to be the breeder of the varieties.
Any successor of the breeder of the varieties.
Any person being the assignee or the breeder of the varieties in respect of the right to make such application.
Any farmer or group of farmers or community of farmers claiming to be breeders of the varieties.
Any person authorized to make an application on behalf of farmers and
Any university or publicly funded agricultural institution claiming to be a breeder of the varieties.

Application for registration of plant varieties can be made in the office of Registrar, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA), New Delhi.

According to Section 18 of the Plant Varieties, Act, for registration of a plant variety the following prerequisites have to be completed:

Denomination assigned to such variety.
Accompanied by an affidavit that variety does not contain any gene or gene sequences involving terminator technology.
Complete passport data of parental lines with their geographical location in India and all such information relating to the contribution if any, of any farmer (s), village, community, institution or organization, etc. in breeding, evolving, or developing the variety.
Characteristics of variety with description for Novelty, Distinctiveness, Uniformity, and Stability.
A declaration that the genetic material used for breeding of such variety has been lawfully acquired.
A breeder or other person making an application for registration shall disclose the use of genetic material conserved by any tribal or rural families for the improvement of such variety.

The PPV& FR Act, 2001 provides for the exclusion of the following verities from registration under the Act:

Where prevention of commercial exploitation of that variety is necessary to protect public order or public morality or human, animal, and plant life and health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment.
Which involves any technology that is injurious to the life or health of human beings, animals, or plants such as varieties developed by terminator technology and genetic restriction use technology.
Whose species or genera are not listed in the notification issued by the Central Government.

Practical Questions

Read the following case study and answer the questions given at the end:

RELMO S.A. (RELMO) is an Argentinean seed company belonging to the Ferrarotti family. The origins of RELMO are to be found in the Ferrarotti Countryside Organization (OFPEC) which was established in the 1960s as the first company in Argentina to devote itself to the genetic improvement of soybean.

OFPEC was responsible for the program that led to the registration of the first Argentinean soybean “variety” (a plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest rank) in 1980. RELMO’s business strategy concentrates on the production and sale of plant seeds of mainstay crops soybean wheat and maize.
Its activities are conducted throughout the Argentinean agricultural and livestock industry. Its central offices are in Rosario Santa Fe, a major grain marketing soybean grinding center and seed export zone.
In fact, the most important soybean-producing exporting center in the world is to be found in an area within a radius of 200 kilometers around Rosario.
Despite its traditional approach in certain areas (e.g. the company’s main experimental field remains the Ferrarotti family farm.) RELMO has dramatically changed its way of doing business and has managed to prosper following some of the important changes that took place in the Argentinean seed industry since the mid-1990s.
One of the main reasons for RELMO’s success has been its ability to manage its intellectual property (IP) successfully and to establish partnerships with foreign and domestic companies and research institutes.
The Argentinean Law No. 20.247 on Seeds and. Phylogenetics,. A Creations guarantees ownership of plant varieties, and the Argentinean Association of Protection for Plant Breeds (ARPOV) deals with the defense of rights and provides the possibility for collecting royalties for IP rights holders.
Additionally, Argentina’s accession to the 1 978 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties Convention (UPOV Convention) plays an important role in the development of companies such as RELMO. One of RELMO’S major areas of work is the genetic improvement of soybeans.
The company’s market position, however, was seriously challenged when Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, started commercializing the Round-up Ready (RR) gene (RR technology allows for the use of herbicide without any adverse effect on the crops) in Argentina during the mid-1 990s.
The RR gene-based plant varieties soon became popular among farmers. RELMO was quick to realize that to retain its market position, it would have to market RR varieties too. Therefore, RELMO reached an agreement with Monsanto Argentina that authorized its use of the RR gene.
This agreement also allowed RELMO to place its soybean varieties in other countries. As far as maize is concerned, due to the high degree of adoption of transgenic (genetically engineered) forms of maize in Argentina, RELMO signed a testing agreement with Monsanto in order to work with MON 810, a maize variety based on the Bt gene (gene of a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a protein toxic to certain types of insects.
The Bt gene can be transferred to crops, thereby making them more resistant to the corresponding insect). RELMO has registered over a dozen trademarks.
Among them, the most important ones are RELMO, TECNOSOJA, TECNOTRIGO and TECNOMAIZ. The company has also registered the name with which it identifies its lines of products, such as CANAL Trademark registrations done primarily for the domestic market with Argentina’s National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI), as varieties that are licensed to foreign companies, for example, American companies, are generally sold under the licensee’s trademarks.

The growth of RELMO in recent years is essentially based on license agreements linked to IP. It has been capable of negotiating licenses for its own varieties and those created by third parties to other companies in Argentina and abroad.

Agreement v/rth the National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA) of Argentina:
In 2002, RELMO concluded an agreement on technology transfer with INTA for the genetic improvement of the subtropical germplasm of maize. Under the Agreement. INTA provides the germplasm, installations, and technical staff and RELMO covers the operating expenditures.
The hybrids obtained are marketed exclusively by RELMO while INTA receives a percentage royalty as the owner of the germplasms. This unique public-private agreement also allows RELMO to produce the hybrids with its own trademark and also to license them out to third parties.
Licensing Agreement with the National Livestock Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay:
INIA and RELMO have a special deal under which INIA has granted RELMO exclusive rights over the licenses for INIA’s wheat varieties in Argentina. In return, RELMO has authorized similar rights to INIA for soybean varieties from RELMO.
This license agreement allows RELMO to enter the wheat seed market with adapted varieties at a cost roughly equivalent to that of developing its own crops, however at a much quicker pace. INIA benefits from the expansion of the market for its wheat varieties.
For RELMO, this is a very good commercial opportunity RELMO has typically focused on soybean sown in summer, but the incorporation of the seeds of winter crops from INIA allows them to expand their sales structure and to generate more revenue.
The scheme of licenses for soybean varieties to INIA, with a view to market them in Uruguay, has similar results for both parties.
Licensing-out to South African companies: In the past, RELMO had granted licenses for conventional varieties in South Africa and more recently, it has done so for RR varieties, thereby contributing to the development of the crop in that country. As in previous agreements, RELMO is the owner of the varieties and a South African company exploits them commercially.
Partnership with Delley Semences et Plantes (seeds and Plants) S.A. (DSP) of Switzerland:
RELMO established a commercial relationship with DSP in Switzerland, which includes licenses for varieties of wheat for the whole of South America and technical collaboration, including the training of RELMO staff in Switzerland.
As in the Agreement with INIA, the varieties here are also owned by DSP, and RELMO is responsible for commercial exploitation. The agreement allowed RELMO to access the Argentinean markets with high-quality wheat varieties.
Argentina constitutes a major market for the production of soybeans in the world. FMT provides important technical support for the crop in Brazil where approximately 16 million hectares are cultivated.
RELMO has established a program of work that includes the joint launch of varieties of soybeans, which is carried out in both countries.
This joint project does not involve any licenses but an ambitious joint development of varieties and research on disease resistance, as well as cultivation technology. Integration with Sursem S.A.: In April 2009, RELMO reached an agreement with Sursem S.A., another Argentinean seed company.

Based on this agreement, Sursem has taken over the responsibility of the distribution of seeds for RELMO in Argentina. Sursem will build upon the existing marketing structure of RELMO and improve its services to customers and distributors.

For its part, RELMO will be integrated into Sursem and will focus on research programs and the improvement of soybean and wheat to meet Argentinean requirements. It will at the same time continue its technology exports to neighboring countries.
Starting as a small family business, RELMO has come a long way to establish itself as a pioneer in the genetic improvement of soybeans in Argentina. The partnership strategy that RELMO pursued not only enabled it to retain its market position in Argentina but also provided it with improved plant varieties, access to foreign markets, and consequently higher revenue.
The integration with Sursem allows RELMO to concentrate more on research and development while at the same time assuring it of the much-needed market access at home and abroad.

A strategic partnership approach through licensing and intelligent use of IP was the key factor behind RELMO’s success.

While the national and international legal framework facilitated the task of ensuring the ownership of phylogenetic creations (varieties or lines), the partnerships helped RELMO move forward quickly and very actively in retaining and extending its domestic and foreign market positions.

Questions.

Assess the RELMO’s ability to manage its Intellectual Property (IP) successfully.
How the Argentina’s accession to the 1 978 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties Convention (UPOV Convention) play an important role in the development of companies such as RELMO?
Although RELMO’s major area of work is the genetic improvement of soybeans the why company’s market position is seriously challenged by Monsanto.
How is the licensing agreement with the National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA) and the National Livestock Research Institute (INIA) helpful for RELMO?

Answer:

1. RELMO’s ability to manage its Intellectual Property (IP) successfully can be assessed from the following:
Agreement with Monsanto Argentina: During the mid-1990s when Monsanto commercialized the RR gene in Argentina and RR gene-based plant varieties became popular among farmers, RELMO quickly realized that to retain its market position, it would have to market RR varieties too.

Therefore RELMO reached an agreement with Monsanto Argentina that authorized its use of the RR gene. This agreement also allowed RELMO to place its soybean varieties in other countries.
As far as maize is concerned, due to the high degree of adoption of transgenic (genetically engineered) forms of maize in Argentina, RELM signed a testing agreement with Monsanto in order to work with MON 81 0, a maize variety based on the Bi gene (gene of a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a protein toxic to certain types of insects.

Registration of trademarks: RELMO has registered over a dozen trademarks. Among them, the most important ones are RELMO, TECNOSOJA, TECNOTRIGO and TECNOMAIZ.

The company has also registered the name with which it identifies its lines of products, such as CANAL This trademark registration enabled foreign companies like American Companies to sell the varieties under the licensee’s trademarks.
So, Telco did not limit itself to Argentina but also targeted foreign countries for its registered varieties.

Entering into Licensing Agreements Linked to IP: The growth of RELMO in recent years is essentially based on license agreements linked to IP. RELMO has been capable of negotiating licenses for its own varieties and those created by third parties to other companies in Argentina and abroad for example.

Agreement with the National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA) of Argentina: This unique public-private arrangement allows RELMO to market exclusively hybrids of maize developed by INTA, to produce hybrids with its own trademark, and also to license them out to third parties.

Licensing Agreement with the National Livestock Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay: This was a special deal between INIA and RELMO which enabled RELMO to enter into exclusive rights over the licenses for INIA’s wheat varieties in Argentina on a reciprocal basis for giving similar rights to INIA for its soybean varieties.

This license agreement allowed RELMO to enter into the wheat seed market with adapted varieties at a cost roughly equivalent to that of developing its own crops however at a much quicker pace. Through this agreement, RELMO expanded its sales structure and generated more revenue.

Licensing-out to South African companies: RELMO granted licenses in South Africa not only for its conventional varieties but also for RR varieties which enables the commercial exploitation of its varieties in South Africa.

Partnership with Delley Semenceset Plantes (Seeds and Plants) S.A. (DSP) of Switzerland: This agreement allowed RELMO to access the Argentinean markets with high-quality wheat varieties.

Integration with Suresam S.A.: This partnership strategy enabled small family business RELMO to retain not only its market position in Argentina but also provided it with improved plant varieties, access to foreign markets, and consequently higher revenue.

The integration with Sursem allowed RELMO to concentrate more on research and development along with ensuring much-needed market access at home and abroad. RELMO started as a small family business and became the first Argentinean Company to devote itself to the genetic improvement of soybeans in the 1960s.
RELMO dramatically changed its way of doing business and adopted changes that took place in the Argentinean seed industry since the mid-1990s. One of the main reasons for RELMO’s success has been its ability to manage its intellectual property (IP) success and to establish partnerships with foreign and domestic companies and research institutes.
A strategic partnership approach through licensing and intelligent use of IP was the key factor behind RELMO’s success.

While the national and international legal framework facilitated the task of ensuring the ownership of phylogenetic creations, the partnership helped RELMO move forward quickly and very actively in retaining and extending its domestic and foreign market positions.

2. The Argentinean Law No.20.247 on Seeds and Phylogenetic Creations, guarantees ownership of plant varieties, and the Argentinean Association of Protection for Plant Breeds (ARPOV) deals with the defense of rights and provides the possibility for collecting royalties for IP rights holders.

Additionally, Argentina’s accession to the 1978 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties Convention (UPOV Convention) plays an important role in the development of companies such as RELMO.
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland).
UPOV was established by the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The Convention was adopted in Paris in 1961 and it was revised in 1972, 1978, and 1991.
UPOV’s mission is to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society. Introducing the UPOV system leads to increased availability of new varieties, and accession to the UPOV Convention means greater availability of foreign new varieties.
For example, in 1991, when the Argentina PVP law incorporated provisions of the UPOV Convention, the number of titles of protection immediately tripled.
With Argentina’s accession to the UPOV Convention in 1994, titles of protection granted to foreign breeders substantially increased as their varieties began to be introduced into the country. Argentinean farmers therefore gained access to, for example, varieties of wheat from abroad with superior baking qualities.
One of RELMO’s major areas of work is the genetic improvement of soybeans. The company’s market position, however, was seriously challenged when Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, started commercializing the Roundup Ready (RR)gene (RR technology allows for the use of herbicide without any adverse effect on the crops) in Argentina during the mid-1990s.
The RR gene-based plant varieties soon became popular among farmers. RELMO was quick to realize that to retain its market position, it would have to market RR varieties too.

Therefore RELMO reached an agreement with Monsanto Argentina that authorized its use of the RR gene. This agreement also allowed RELMO to place its soybean varieties in other countries.

3. RELMO S.A. is an Argentinean seed company belonging to the Ferrarotti family. RELMO was established in the 1960s as the first company in Argentina to devote itself to the genetic improvement of soybeans.

RELMO’s business strategy concentrates on the production and sale of plant seeds of mainstay crops: soybean, wheat, and maize.
Although the RELMO’s major area of work is the genetic improvement of soybean the company’s market position, however, was seriously challenged when Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, started commercializing the Roundup Ready (RR) gene (RR technology allows for the use of herbicide without any adverse effect on the crops) in Argentina during the mid-1 990s.
The RR gene-based plant varieties soon became popular among farmers. RELMO was quick to realize that to retain its market position, it would have to market RR varieties too.
Therefore RELMO reached an agreement with Monsanto Argentina that authorized its use of the RR gene.
This agreement also allowed RELMO to place its soybean varieties in other countries. The apprehension of acquiring market dominance in the commercial market of RR varieties by Monsanto derives the RELMO to comprehend the requirement of commercial collaboration where authorized usage can give them more economic opportunities to breed soybean varieties in the same market and different places conducive to local specification, geographical area to such products.
As far as maize is concerned, due to the high degree of adoption of transgenic (genetically engineered) forms of maize in Argentina, RELMO signed a testing agreement with Monsanto in order to work with MON 810, a maize variety based on the Bt gene (gene of a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a protein toxic to certain types of insects.
The Bt gene can be transferred to crops, thereby making them more resistant to the corresponding insect).

Agreement with the National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA) of Argentina: In 2002, RELMO concluded an agreement on technology transfer with INTA for the genetic improvement of the subtropical germplasm of maize.

Under the Agreement. INTA provides the germplasm, installations, and technical staff, and RELMO covers the operating expenditures.

The hybrids obtained are marketed exclusively by RELMO while INTA receives a percentage royalty as the owner of the germplasms. This unique public-private agreement also allows RELMO to produce the hybrids with its own trademark and also to license them out to third parties.

Licensing Agreement with the National Livestock Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay: INIA and RELMO have a special deal under which INIA has granted RELMO exclusive rights over the licenses for INIA’s wheat varieties in Argentina.

In return, RELMO has authorized similar rights to INI A lots of bean varieties from RELMO. This license agreement allows I U I MO to enter the wheat seed market with adapted varieties at a cost roughly equivalent to that of developing its own crops, however at a much quicker pace. INIA benefits from the expansion of the market for Its wheat varieties.
For RELMO, this is a very good commercial opportunity; RELMO has typically focused on soybeans sown in summer, but the incorporation of the seeds of winter crops from INIA allows them to expand their sales structure and generate more revenue.
The scheme of licenses for soybean varieties to INIA, with a view to market them in Uruguay, has similar results for both parties.
Variety licensing allows breeding companies or institutions to commercialize their products (plant varieties) and is also an efficient tool for technology transfer.
New technology in a variety, represented by improved genetics and expressed mostly through improved agricultural performance, can be transferred to farmers by licensing out seed production and distribution rights to seed companies.
The variety license itself consists of an agreement between the owners of the varieties, an authorized representative, and a legally eligible person who wishes to commercialize the variety. Access to new varieties requires proper handling of intellectual property (IP).
This can be accomplished through variety license agreements, which also provide a strategy for developing and introducing new varieties. In-licensing plant varieties can raise market share or offer competitive advantages by increasing the ability to meet customer demands.
The most obvious reason for in-licensing varieties is to enhance or complete a company’s variety portfolio. This applies both to companies with their own breeding programs and to companies working exclusively with in-licensed varieties.
Those species for which a company has existing breeding programs-or other species that may be of interest to the market are potentially subject to in-licensing.
Demand for certain products from farmers, the processing industry, or consumers could be met by a company obtaining a license from the variety owner to supply the market with seeds of that variety.
The most common reason for a company to out-license its varieties is to maximize the return on its investment by allowing others to produce and sell its varieties in markets that the company cannot reach.
Exclusive licenses are preferred because breeders believe that the mutual commitment will be stronger when working exclusively. A good variety provides a competitive advantage and will thus create revenue for the company with the exclusive rights.

It is in the best interest of both parties to make the variety as profitable as possible, and the commitment resulting from exclusive rights is considered to lead to the best market coverage possible.

Short Notes

Question 1 Write a short note on the constitution of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority.
Answer: Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights, Authority, and Registry. The provisions under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers-Rights Act, 2001 on the subject of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights, Authority and Registry’ are contained in Chapter II (Sections 3 to 13) of the Act. The relevant provisions thereof are reproduced herein below:

Section 3 – Establishment of Authority: The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Authority to be known as the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority for the purposes of this Act.

The Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and fifteen members.
The Chairperson, to be appointed by the Central Government, shall be a person of outstanding caliber and eminence, with long practical experience to the satisfaction of that Government especially in the field of plant varietal research or agricultural development.

The members of the Authority, to be appointed by the Central Government, shall be as follows, namely:-

The Agriculture Commissioner, Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi, ex officio;
The Deputy Director General in charge of Crop Sciences, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, ex officio;
The Joint Secretary in charge of Seeds, Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi, ex officio;
The Horticulture Commissioner, Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi, ex officio:
The Director, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi, ex officio;
One member not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India to represent the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, ex officio;
One member not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India to represent the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, ex officio;
One member not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India to represent the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, ex officio;
One representative from a National or State level farmers’ organization to be nominated by the Central Government:
One representative from a tribal organization to be nominated by the Central Government;
One representative from the seed industry to be nominated by the Central Government,
One representative from an agricultural University to be nominated by the Central Government;
One representative from a National or State level women’s organization associated with agricultural activities to be nominated by the Central Government; and
Two representatives of State Governments on a rotation basis to be nominated by the Central Government.

The Registrar-General shall be the ex officio member-secretary of the Authority.

The Chairperson shall appoint a Standing Committee consisting of five members, one of whom shall be a member who is a representative from a farmers’ organization, to advise the Authority on all issues including farmers’ rights.

Section 4 – Meetings of Authority: The Authority shall meet at such time and place and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meetings including the quorum at its meetings and the transaction of business of its Standing Committee-appointed under sub-section (7) of section 3 as may be prescribed.

The Chairperson of the Authority shall preside at the meetings of the Authority.
No act or proceeding of the Authority shall be invalid merely by reason of
Any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of, the Authority; or
Any defect in the appointment of a person acting as the Chairperson or a member of the Authority; or
Any irregularity in the procedure of the Authority not affecting the merits of the case.

Section 7 – Chairperson of be Chief Executive: The Chairperson shall be the Chief Executive of the Authority and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed.

Section 8 – General functions of Authority: It shall be the duty of the Authority to promote, by such measures as it thinks fit, the encouragement for the development of new varieties of plants and to protect the rights of the farmers and breeders.

In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the measures referred to in subsection (1) may provide for

The registration of extant varieties subject to such terms and conditions and in the manner as may be prescribed;
Developing characterization and documentation of varieties registered under this Act;
Documentation, indexing, and cataloging of farmers’ varieties;
Compulsory cataloging facilities for all varieties of plants;
Ensuring that seeds of the varieties registered under this Act are available to the farmers and providing for compulsory licensing of such varieties if the breeder of such varieties or any other person entitled to produce such variety under this Act does not arrange for the production and sale of the seed in the manner as may be prescribed;
Collecting statistics with regard to plant varieties, including the contribution of any person at any time in the evolution or development of any plant variety, in India or in any other country, for compilation and publication;
Ensuring the maintenance of the Register.

Section 11 – Power of Authority: In all proceedings under this Act before the Authority or the Registrar,
The Authority or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall have all the powers of a civil court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents, and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses

The Authority or the Registrar may, subject to any rule made in this behalf under this Act, make such orders as to costs as it considers reasonable and any such order shall be executable as a decree of a civil court.

Section 12 – Registry and offices thereof: The Central Government shall establish, for the purposes of this Act, a Registry which shall be known as the Plant Varieties Registry.

The Authority may appoint such number of Registrars as it thinks necessary for the registration of plant varieties under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar-General under this Act and may make regulations with respect to their duties and jurisdiction. There shall be a seal of the Plant Varieties Registry.

Section 13 – National Register of Plant Varieties: For the purposes of this Act, a Register called the National Register of Plant Varieties shall be kept at the head office of the Registry, wherein shall be entered the names of all the registered plant varieties with the names and addresses of their respective breeders, the right of such breeders in respect of the registered varieties, the particulars of the denomination of each registered variety, its seed or other propagating material along with specification of salient features thereof and such other matters as may be prescribed.

Question 2 Write a brief note on infringement offenses, penalties, and procedures.
Answer: Infringement, Offences, Penalties, and Procedure (Chapter X- Section 64 to 77)

Section 64 – Infringement: Subject to the provisions of this Act, a right established under this Act is infringed by a person-

Who, not being the breeder of a variety registered under this Act or a registered agent or a registered licensee of that variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without the permission of its breeder or within the scope of a registered license or registered agency without the permission of the registered licensee or registered agent, as the case
maybe
Who uses, sells, exports, imports, or produces any other variety giving such variety, the denomination identical with or deceptively similar to the denomination of a variety registered under this Act in such manner as to cause confusion in the mind of general people in identifying such variety so registered.

Section 65 – Suit for infringement:

No suit-(a) for the infringement of a variety registered under this Act; or (b) relating to any right in a variety registered under this Act, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), “District Court having jurisdiction” shall mean the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises.

Section 66 – Relief in a suit for infringement:

The relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement referred to in section 65 includes an injunction and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or a share of the profits.
The order of injunction under sub-section (1) may include an e/ pane injunction or any interlocutory order for any of the following matters, namely:–
- Discovery of documents;
- Preserving of infringing variety or documents or of evidence which are related to the subject matter of the suit,
- Attachment of such property of the defendant which the court deems necessary to recover damages, costs, or other pecuniary remedies which may be finally awarded to the plaintiff,

Section 67 – Opinion of scientific adviser:

When the court has to form an opinion upon any question of fact or a scientific issue, such a court may appoint an independent scientific advisor to suggest it or to inquire into and report upon the matter to enable it to form the desired opinion.
The scientific adviser may be paid such remuneration or expenses as the court may fix.

Offenses, Penalties, and Procedure

Section 68 – Prohibition to apply denomination of (25 of 1961) registered variety:

No person other than the breeder of a variety. registered under this Act or a registered licensee or a registered agent thereof shall use the denomination of that variety in the manner as may be prescribed.
A person shall be deemed to apply the denomination of a variety registered under this Act who–
- Applies it to the variety itself; or
- Applies it to any package in or with which the variety is sold, or exposed for sale, or had in possession such package for sale or for any purpose of trade or production; or
- Places, encloses, or annexes the variety which is sold, or exposed for sale, or had in possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or production, in or with any package or other thing to which the denomination of such variety registered under this Act has been applied; or
- Uses the denomination of such variety registered under this Act in any manner reasonably likely to lead to the belief that the variety or its propagating material in connection with which it is used is designated or described by the denomination; or
- In relation to the variety uses such denomination in any advertisement, invoice, catalog, business letter, business paper, price list, or other commercial document, and such variety is delivered to a person in pursuance of a request or order made by reference to the denomination as so used.
A denomination shall be deemed to be applied to a variety whether it is woven in, impressed on, or otherwise worked into, or annexed or affixed to, such variety or to any package or other thing.

Section 69 – Meaning falsely applying to denominate of (25 of 1961) registered variety:

A person shall be deemed to falsely apply the denomination of a variety registered under this Act who, without the assent of the breeder of such variety,-
- Applies such denomination or a deceptively similar denomination to any variety or any package containing such variety;
- Uses any package bearing a denomination which is identical with or deceptively similar to the denomination of such variety registered under this Act, for the purpose of packing, filling, or wrapping therein any variety other than such variety registered under this Act.
- Any denomination of a variety registered under this Act falsely applied as mentioned in sub-section (1), is in this Act referred to as a false denomination.
- In any prosecution for falsely applying a denomination of a variety registered under this Act the burden of proving the assent of the breeder of such variety shall lie on the accused.

Section 70 – Penalty for applying false denomination, etc : Any person who

Applies any false denomination to a variety; or
Indicates the false name of a country or place or false name and address of the breeder of a variety registered under this Act in the course of trading such variety, shall, unless he proves that he acted, without intent to defraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

Section 71 – Penalty for selling varieties to which false denomination is applied, etc.: Any person who sells, or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or production of any variety to which any false denomination is applied or to which an indication of the country or place in which such variety was made or produced or the name and address of the breeder of such variety registered under this Act has been falsely made, shall unless he proves-

That having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offense against this section, he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offense no reason to suspect the genuineness of the denomination of such variety or that any offense had been committed in respect of indication of the country or place in which such variety registered under this Act, was made or produced or the name and address of the breeder of such variety;
That, on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his possession with respect to the person from whom he obtained such variety; or
That otherwise he had acted innocently, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

Section 72 – Penalty for falsely representing (25 of 1961) variety as registered: Whoever makes any representation with respect to the denomination of a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material not being a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material registered under this Act, to the effect that it is a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material registered under this Act or otherwise represents any variety, or its propagating material, or essentially derived variety or its propagating material not registered under this Act to the effect that it is registered under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

Section 73 – Penalty for subsequent offence.- Whoever, having already been convicted of an offense under this Act is again convicted of such offense shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offense with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty lakh rupees, or with both.

Section 74 – No offense in certain cases: The provisions of this Act relating to offenses shall be subject to the right created as recognized by this Act and no act or omission shall be deemed to be an offense under the provisions of this Act if such act or omission is permissible under this Act.

Section 75 – Exemption of certain persons employed in the ordinary course of business: Where a person accused of an offense under this Act proves that in the ordinary course of his employment, he has acted without any intention to commit the offense and having taken all reasonable precautions against committing the offense charged, he had, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, no reason to suspect the genuineness of the act so charged as an offense and on demand made by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his possession with respect to the persons on whose behalf the offense was committed, he shall be acquitted.

Section 76 – Procedure where the invalidity of registration is pleaded by the accused:

Where the offense charged under this Act is in relation to a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material registered under this Act and the accused pleads that the registration of such variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material, as the case may be, is invalid and the court is satisfied that such offense is prima facie not tenable, it shall not proceed with the charge but shall adjourn the proceedings for three months from the date on which the plea of the accused is recorded to enable the accused to file an application before the Registrar under this Act for the rectification of the Register on the ground that the registration is invalid.
If the accused proves to the court that he has made such application within the time so limited or within such further lime as the court for sufficient cause allows the further proceedings in the prosecution shall stand stayed till the disposal of such application for rectification.
If within a period of three months or within such extended time as may be allowed by the court, the accused fails to apply to the Registrar for rectification of the Register, the court shall proceed with the case as if the registration were valid.
Where before the institution of a complaint of an offence referred to in subsection (1), any application for the rectification of the Register concerning the registration of the variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material, as the case may be, in question on the ground of invalidity of such registration has already been properly made to and is pending before the Registrar, the court shall stay the further proceedings in the prosecution pending the disposal of the application aforesaid and shall determine the charge against the accused in conformity with the result of the application for rectification.

Section 77 – Offences by companies: If the person committing an offense under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offense shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Question 3 Write a short note on farmer rights.
Answer:

Farmers’ Rights (Chapter VI- Section 39 to 46)

Section 39 – Farmer’s rights: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

A farmer who has bred or developed a new variety shall be entitled to registration and other protection in like manner as a breeder of a variety under this Act;
The farmers’ variety shall be entitled to registration if the application contains a declaration as specified in the clause of sub-section of section 18;
A farmer who is engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of landraces and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation shall be entitled in the prescribed manner to recognition and reward from the Gene Fund:
Provided that material so selected and preserved has been used as donors of genes in varieties registrable under this Act;
A farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, re-sow, exchange, share, or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act:

Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labeled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.

Where any propagating material of a variety registered under this Act has been sold to a farmer or a group of farmers or any organization of farmers, the breeder of such variety shall disclose to the farmer or the group of farmers or the organization of fanners, as the case may be, the expected performance under given conditions,

And if such propagating material fails to provide such performance under such given conditions, the farmer or the group of farmers or the organization of fanners, as the case may be, may claim compensation in the prescribed manner before the Authority and the Authority, after giving notice to the breeder of the variety and after providing him an opportunity to file an opposition in the prescribed manner and after hearing the parties, may direct the breeder of the variety to pay such compensation as it deems fit, to the farmer or the group of farmers or the organization of farmers, as the case may be.

Descriptive Questions

Question.1 Mention the provisions related to ‘Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal.
Answer: Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal (Chapter VIII- Sections 54 to 59)

Section 54- Tribunal: The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Tribunal to be known as the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers, and authority conferred on it by or under this Act.

Section 55 – Composition of Tribunal:

The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and such number of Judicial Members and Technical Members as the Central Government may deem fit to appoint.
A Judicial Member shall be a person who has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India or who has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade-ll of that Service or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years or who has been an advocate for at least twelve years.
A Technical Member shall be a person who is an eminent agricultural scientist in the field of plant breeding and genetics and possesses experience of at least twenty years in dealing with plant variety or seed development activity, or who has held the post in the Central Government or a State Government dealing with plant variety or seed development equivalent to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India for at least three years and possesses special knowledge in the field of plant breeding and genetics.
The Central Government shall appoint a Judicial Member of the Tribunal to be the Chairman thereof.
The Central Government may appoint one of the Members of the Tribunal to be the senior Member thereof.
The senior Member or a Member shall exercise such of the powers and perform such of the functions of the Chairman as may be delegated to him by the Chairman by a general or special order in writing.
Every such appeal shall be preferred by a petition in writing and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

Section 57 – Orders of Tribunal:

The Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.
The Tribunal may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying the mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the appellant or the opposite party.
In every appeal, the Tribunal may, where it is possible, hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the date of filing of the appeal.
The Tribunal shall send a copy of any order passed under this section to the Registrar.
The orders of the Tribunal under this Act shall be executable as a decree of a civil court.

Section 58 – Procedure of Tribunal:

The powers and functions of the Tribunal may be exercised and discharged by Benches constituted by the Chairman of the Tribunal from among the Members thereof.
A Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member.
If the Members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and the case shall be referred to the Chairman for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other Members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall have the power to regulate its own procedure and the procedure of Benches thereof in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers or the discharge of its functions, including the places at which the Benches shall hold their sittings.
The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of discharging its functions, have all the powers which are vested in the Registrar under section 1 1, and any proceeding before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or any other manner) shall be made on, or in, any proceedings relating to an appeal unless-

Copies of such appeal and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such appeal is made or proposed to be made; and
Opportunity is given to such a party to be heard in the matter.

Section 59 – Transitional provision.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, till the establishment of the Tribunal under section 54, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board established under section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 shall exercise the jurisdiction, powers, and authority conferred on the Tribunal under this Act subject to the modification that in any Bench of such Intellectual Property Appellate Board constituted for the purposes of this section, for the Technical Member referred to in sub-section

Of section 84 of the said Trade Marks Act, the Technical Member shall be appointed under this Act and he shall be deemed to be the Technical Member for constituting the Bench under the said sub-section.
Of section 84 for the purposes of this Act.

Question 2. Discuss the Procedure of surrender and revocation of the certificate.
Answer: Surrender and Revocation of certificate (Chapter V- Sections 33 To 38) Section 33 – Surrender of certificate of registration:

A breeder of a variety registered under this Act may, at any time by giving notice in the prescribed manner to the Registrar, offer to surrender his certificate of. registration.
Where such an offer is made, the Registrar shall notify in the prescribed manner every registered agent or registered licensee relating to such certificate.
Any of such agent or licensee may, within the prescribed period after such notification, give notice to the Registrar of his opposition to the surrender, and where any such notice is given, the Registrar shall intimate the contents of such notice to the breeder of such variety.
If the Registrar is satisfied after hearing the applicant and all the opponents, if desirous of being heard, that the certificate of registration may properly be surrendered, he may accept the offer and by order revoke the certificate of registration.

Section 34 – Revocation of protection on certain grounds: Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the protection granted to a breeder in respect of a variety may, on the application in the prescribed manner of any person interested, be revoked by (he Authority on any of the following grounds, namely:

That the grant of the certificate of registration has been based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant;
That the certificate of registration has been granted to a person who is not eligible for protection under this Act;
That the breeder did not provide the Registrar with such information, documents, or material as required for registration under this Act;
That the breeder has failed to provide an alternative denomination of the variety which is the subject matter of the registration to the Registrar in the case where the earlier denomination of such variety provided to the Registrar is not permissible for registration under this Act;
That the breeder did not provide the necessary seeds or propagating material to the person to whom a compulsory license has been issued under section 47 regarding the variety in respect of which registration certificate has been issued to such breeder;
That the breeder has not complied with the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder;
That the breeder has failed to comply with the directions of the Authority issued under this Act;
(That the grant of the certificate of registration is not in the public interest; Provided that no such protection shall be revoked unless the breeder is given a reasonable opportunity to file an objection and of being heard in the matter.

Section 35 – Payment of annual fees and forfeiture of registration in default thereof:

The Authority may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose a fee to be paid annually, by every breeder of a variety, agent, and licensee thereof registered under this Act determined on the basis of benefit or royalty gained by such breeder, agent or licensee, as the case may be, in respect of the variety, for the retention of their registration under this Act.
If any breeder, agent, or licensee fails to deposit the fee referred to in subsection (7) imposed upon him under that sub-section in the prescribed manner up to two consecutive years, the Authority shall issue notice to such breeder, agent or licensee, and on service of such notice if he fails to comply with the direction in the notice, the Authority shall declare all the protection admissible under the registration certificate issued to such breeder or agent or licensee forfeited.
The arrears of fee imposed under sub-section (/) shall be deemed to be the arrears of land revenue and shall be recoverable accordingly.

Section 36 – Power to cancel or change registration and to rectify the Register:

On an application made in the prescribed manner to the Registrar by any person aggrieved, the Registrar may make such order as he may think fit for canceling or changing any certificate of registration issued under this Act on the ground of any contravention of the provisions of this Act or failure to observe a condition subject to which such registration certificate is issued.
Any person aggrieved by the absence or omission from the Register of any entry, or by any entry made in the Register without sufficient cause, or by any entry wrongly remaining on the Register, may apply in the prescribed manner to the Registrar and the Registrar may make such order for making, expunging or varying the entry as he may think fit.
The Registrar may in any proceeding under this section, decide any question that may be necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the rectification of the Register.
The Registrar on his own motion may, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the parties concerned and after giving them an opportunity of being heard, make any order referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).

The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmer’s Rights Descriptive Questions

Practical Questions

Short Notes

Descriptive Questions

Leave a Comment Cancel reply