Section 89 Of PPVFR Act Imposes Bar On Civil Courts To Determine Validity Of Registration Of Plant Variety: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that Section 89 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act) imposes a bar on the civil courts to determine the validity of the registration of a plant variety.
A Division Bench of Justice I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury said, “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 intention of the legislature is otherwise. Section 89 of 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 has jurisdiction.”
The Bench further held that once a plant variety is registered under Section 24 of the PPVFR Act, it is not subject to the test of validity by the civil courts.
“Only the Registrar or the authority under the Act has the power to rectify the register or cancel the registration on the ground that a variety’s registration is invalid. No such order from any authority declaring the registration invalid or even prima facie invalid is on record”, said the Court.
Senior Advocate Ranjan Bachawat appeared on behalf of the appellant while Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
In 2010, the appellant company (Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd.) made an application for registration of the seed of the plant variety PAN 804 before the Registrar under the PPVFR Act and claimed that the variety is genetically related to the RASI variety whose stigma was purple. The distinguishable feature of their variety was the white stigma and such variety was tested by the Registrar under Section 19 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Regulations, 2006 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (Criteria for Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability for Registration) Regulations, 2009 to check its “distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (DUS)”.
After considering the application, the Registrar issued a registration certificate to the appellant which was valid for 6 years, and earlier in 2009, the appellant obtained registration of its trademark ‘JAMUN’. The appellant alleged that the respondents were using, selling, and producing a variety of seeds under the names JAMUN and DURONTO which were identical to it, and hence filed a suit before the District Judge. An ex parte ad interim order of injunction against the respondents but thereafter, the court dismissed an interim application of the appellant which was opposed by it on the ground that the court overstepped its jurisdiction at the injunction stage.
The High Court in the above context observed, “If one has to establish the validity or invalidity of a mark, one has to do so only in a civil court. The bar only applies to a civil court. The criminal court cannot make any declaration or pass any injunction in civil matters. Now, if in a criminal case the validity or invalidity of registration would determine conviction, the court cannot held two trials to try one alleged offence.”
The Court further noted that when a suit is filed alleging infringement under the PPVFR Act and a plea is made by the defendant that the registration relied upon is invalid, then the court is left with no option but to take the registration as valid and deal with the suit accordingly.
“The learned court below 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. … the learned judge has unnecessarily made an investigation into the characteristics, distinctiveness and stability of the appellant’s variety. He also exceeded his jurisdiction by making a comparative analysis of the diverse varieties”, observed the Court.
The Court also said that once the appellant has been able to register its variety, it is entitled to protect it by restraining others from growing, selling, marketing, or otherwise dealing with the said variety.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and restrained the respondents from breeding, growing, selling, marketing, or dealing with the plant variety PAN 804 including the seeds till the disposal of the suit.
Cause Title- Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
