AREA: Plant Variety
FACTS:
The Plaintiff developed a hybrid variety of Cauliflower under the name ‘Katreena’. The Plaintiff came across the Defendant No. 3’s hybrid cauliflower seeds under the name ‘Riya’. The Plaintiff submitted that it conducted tests which disclosed that the seeds of the Defendant had 100% identical characteristic features as that of the Plaintiff’s hybrid variety. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant had illegally acquired Plaintiff’s confidential information relating to breeding from its ex-employees (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and knowingly misappropriated its trade secret. Accordingly, the Plaintiff instituted the instant suit seeking permanent injunctions against the Defendants, restraining them from using or disclosing any of the confidential information related to Plaintiff’s breeding strategies. The plaintiff requires its employees to enter into an employment agreement and undertake not to disclose any such sensitive and confidential information to any third party during the course of employment and at any time thereafter. Plaintiff mandates its employees to execute a Deed of Assignment of all rights, title and interest to any and all intellectual property developed by the employee or in the development of which the employee has contributed, during the term of the employment with the plaintiff, to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 & 2 had access to the plaintiff’s intellectual property including trade secrets. One of the hybrid varieties developed by the plaintiff is the Cauliflower Hybrid sold in the market under the name ‘Katreena. Plaintiff came across packets of hybrid cauliflower seeds in the market which carried the photographs of the plaintiff’s hybrid cauliflower SCFH130, being marketed under the name ‘Riya with same characteristics. Defendant 3 knowingly misappropriated the trade secret parent lines of plaintiff and also acquired confidential information relating to breeding strategies, soil conditions for breeding impugned hybrid from defendant 1 and 2. Thus, plaintiff claimed permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 and 2 from disclosing any confidential information plaintiff including parental materials, etc., defendant 3 from disclosing or using the same. Sole ground for rejection sought of the plaint being bar of the jurisdiction of this Court, contained in Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants have indulged in unfair competition by wrongfully exploiting the plaintiff’s valuable confidential information?
ANALYSIS:
Court in view of the above examined the provisions in context of the present issue and stated that rights conferred by the PPVFR Act, on the breeder of a plant variety, are thus a facet of intellectual property and fall in the same domain as trademarks, copyright, patents and design.
The Defendant argued that the instant suit could have been initiated by the Plaintiff only if its plant variety was registered and the breeder’s rights had been conferred upon it.
Both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s applications for registration of their respective plant varieties are pending before the Registrar under the PPVFR Act and the issue of breeder’s rights is yet to be resolved.
The relief seeking which the suit had been filed was within the domain of Registrar of Plant Varieties in exercise of powers under Section 24(5) of the PPVFR Act and the jurisdiction of this Court thus was barred under Section 89 thereof.
It was thus felt that the suit was not entertainable and plaint liable to be rejected. Breeder, once has been granted registration, in an action for infringement can always claim profits earned by such infringer for the pre-registration period as well.
When the plaintiff did not have any right in, the plaintiff could not have protected by entering into agreements with the defendants 1 and 2.
JUDGMENT:
Plaintiff, prior to obtaining registration under the PPVFR Act, cannot maintain a suit to restrain the defendants from infringing the rights which are yet to be conferred on the plaintiff on grant of registration. Rights of the applicant for registration as a plant variety are inchoate and not crystallized till grant of registration. The Registrar of Plant Varieties is not entitled to restrain another from commercially exploiting the plant variety, registration of which is sought, so will this Court as the Civil Court be not entitled to protect the claimed rights till crystallized by way of registration.
Comments