Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court ruled that the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 prohibits civil courts from considering the legality of a variety's registration.

A division bench of Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury noted, "Section 89 states that the civil court has no jurisdiction over any subject that the Registrar has the authority to decide. It also imposes a bar on the courts exercising civil jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marks."

The court further added, “If the civil courts had the power to adjudge the validity of registration of a variety, it could have only gone into the question prima facie at the motion stage. The final adjudication would determine the ultimate validity. The legislature's intention is otherwise. Section 89 of the PPVFR Act like its corresponding Section 93 in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 imposes a bar on the civil courts to determine any matter over which the authority or the Registrar [of Plant Varieties] has jurisdiction."

According to the bench, once a plant variety has been registered under Section 24 of the Act, it cannot be submitted to a civil court's test of validity, even if such a test is made prima facie. It was emphasised that under the Act, only the Registrar would have the authority to correct, change, or cancel a plant variety's registration due to invalidity.

The court was dealing with the appeal filed by Pan Seeds Pvt Limited against the judgment of a District Court. Pan Seeds alleged that the district judge overstepped his jurisdiction at the injunction stage by delving into the validity of a registered plant variety's registration.

The appellant is the breeder of the plant variety PAN 804. On May 28, 2008 without any opposition, they registered the trademarks "JAMUN" and "PAN 804 JAMUN" in March 2009. Section 19 of the PPV & FR Act establishes a three-part test for a plant variety to be registrable under the Act: distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability.

Further, the appellants stated in the registration application, the distinguishing feature of the variety sought to be registered, is the white stigma. Later on, they discovered the respondents utilising, selling, and producing seeds with the names JAMUN and DURONTO that were identical to theirs. The similarity was not only in the names but also in the colouration of the plant variety's stigma, which was white in both.

Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted before the court that under Section 89 of the PPVFR Act, the civil court had no authority to decide the validity of the registration, finally or even prima facie which power, vested in the authority or the Registrar specified in the Act. The court erroneously went into that question prima facie.

Further, they argued that as long as the registration remains with the appellant in the records of the authority, they have the exclusive right to produce, sell and otherwise deal with the plant variety.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the lower court considered applying the appellant prima facie at the motion stage. Even at the motion stage, a respondent is entitled to produce documents and rely on them for the purpose of resisting an interim order.

Further, it was stated that since in a criminal proceeding, the point of prima facie invalidity of registration can be raised, it may equally be raised in a civil proceeding.

The court after considering all the facts and arguments held that the lower court completely failed to appreciate that registration of a variety included “propagating material” which included seed, under Section 2(r) and 2(za) of the PPVFR Act. Hence, registration of the plant variety protected its seeds also.

Further, the court had wrongly exercised its jurisdiction by going into the prima facie case on the question of the validity of the appellant’s registration. Also, it exceeded its jurisdiction by making a comparative analysis of the diverse varieties.

“The district court had committed a very gross error. The order of the court below can be called perverse,” the court added.

Case Title:  Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Statue: The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001