Summary: How safe is your maize? A recent injunction for infringement of a maize variety in India has given a jolt to the agricultural industry, raising questions about what it takes to protect a plant variety.
In a rare case involving the infringement of a plant variety, an Indian court recently granted an interim injunction to a company claiming breeders' rights over a hybrid maize variety, generally considered to be a high stakes cash crop. By three orders dated 28.3.2025 in M/s. Advanta Enterprises Ltd. v. Yaganti Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (IA Nos. 31, 32, 33 of 2025 in COS No. 3 of 2025), the Commercial Court of Hyderabad granted an interim injunction to the petitioner ("Advanta") for infringement under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights, 2001 (the "PPVFR Act").
The case
Advanta claimed it had developed a new hybrid variety of maize, "ADV759", by crossing their two proprietary parental lines "F330089" and "M330090". All three lines, including ADV 759, were registered under Section 15 of PPVFR Act.
Advanta alleged that the defendant ("Yaganti") infringed its breeders' rights by selling seeds of "Bharathi 756 Power" in the market. Advanta accordingly filed a suit under section 64 of the PPVFR Act to restrain Yaganti from infringing Advanta's breeders' rights in respect of ADV759, F330089 and M330090.
Under Section 64, a right under the PPVFR Act is infringed by a person –
- who, not being the breeder of a registered variety or a registered agent or a registered licensee of that variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without permission;
or
- who uses, sells, exports, imports or produces any other variety with a denomination identical or deceptively similar to the denomination of a registered variety so as to cause confusion in identifying such variety.
Advanta also sought an interim injunction against Yaganti in view of the upcoming Kharif season. The Kharif season is of strategic agricultural significance in India, as it coincides with the onset of the southwest monsoon, which is usually between June and October. This is the time when crops like paddy, maize, and cotton are sown and harvested. This season has long-ranging impact on food security and agricultural livelihoods in the country.
In order to prove infringement by Yaganti, Advanta submitted a DNA test report, a DUS (Distinct, Uniform and Stable) test report and an expert opinion. The test reports and the opinion were used to demonstrate that 31 characteristics of ADV759 and Bharathi 756 Power were similar. Advanta also contended that the similarities between these two varieties was scientifically possible only if the same parental line were used to produce Bharathi 756 Power.
Court Commissioner
The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to collect samples from Yaganti's premises, to purchase samples from the open market, and send the samples to Telangana International Seed Testing Authority ("TISTA"). On receipt of the samples, TISTA requested the parties to submit bench markers. Accordingly, further directions were given to Yaganti to submit the bench markers for the DNA test; this report is awaited. It is relevant to note that the Court proceeded to issue its order even as the defendant argued it was premature to do so in the absence of these additionally commissioned reports.
The defence
Yaganti challenged both the DNA test and DUS test reports submitted by Advanta. According to Yaganti, both reports were unreliable and inaccurate:
- Regarding the DNA test report, Yaganti said that the test was conducted by Advanta in their in-house lab using Advanta's bench markers and did not use Yaganti's bench markers;
- Regarding the DUS test, Yaganti had several concerns: firstly, it was unclear which material was used for carrying out the test; secondly, the test itself was inaccurate; thirdly, the test used another variety, "Raadhika", and not Bharathi 756 Power; fourthly, the report showed that characteristic no. 31 was different from that of Bharathi 756 Power; and fifthly, that the test was carried out at one location only.
Yaganti also maintained that the tests in question were not carried out in accordance with the requirements under Section 19 of the PPVFR Act read with Rule 29 of the PPVFR Rules, 2003. (Section 19 and Rule 29 pertain to certain testing requirements to be met when an applicant seeks registration of a variety under the PPVFR Act.)
The expert opinion was also contested by Yaganti, which argued that the opinion was biased and lacked credibility. The defendant also contended that Advanta had obtained registration on its plant variety by misstating facts.
In the circumstances, Yaganti stated that there was no prima facie case and no balance of convenience demonstrated by the petitioner; and if irreparable harm were established, Advanta could be monetarily compensated. Yaganti also said that it was selling seeds at a lower price, which benefited the farmers.
The decision
The Court was not inclined to accept Yaganti's contentions questioning the veracity and manner of conducting the tests. The Court also noted that Section 19 lays down requirements for the testing of plant varieties to determine if they are eligible for registration under the Act. It states that the tests shall be conducted according to the procedures laid down in Rule 29. The Court pointed out that this provision prescribes the procedure for conducting tests before the issuance of the registration certificate, and therefore it was not applicable in the present case.
Regarding Yaganti's submission about their price of seeds being lower, the Court said the issue was whether there was an infringement, and infringement cannot be justified by a party on the grounds that seeds are being offered at a lower price.
On Yaganti's contention that Advanta obtained plant variety registration by misstating the facts, the Court noted that the certificate of registration was issued by the Authority after following due process laid down under the PPVFR Act. At no point of time had Yaganti raised an objection against the registration. The Court said that if Yaganti were aggrieved by the registration, they could make a representation before the Authority under the PPVFR Act, and this Court was not the proper forum for this purpose.
In conclusion, the Court held that Advanta had prima facie established that the characteristics of Bharti 756 Power were deceptively similar to ADV759 and its parental lines, and that Yaganti had failed to establish otherwise. The balance of convenience also lay in favor of Advanta, and if Yaganti continued to sell Bharti 756 Power seeds, it would cause irreparable loss to Advanta. Therefore, an interim injunction was granted restraining Yaganti from infringing Advanta's varieties.
Takeaways
Being a relatively new legislation, many provisions of the PPVFR Act are yet to be thoroughly tested. This case is a rare occasion where a court was satisfied that an interim injunction for infringement ought to be granted to a rights holder.
Additionally, the order offers certain matters of note: As per the law on this account, a rights holder may rely on independently conducted DUS and DNA tests as well as expert reports to set up a case. In order to counter this, arguably, a defendant would have to submit equally persuasive reports of similar quality and standing; here, the defendant appears to have been unable to present equivalent test reports.
While the Court does not seem to have taken particular cognizance of this fact, it may be useful for a petitioner to demonstrate why there is urgency for an injunction to be granted; here, the petitioner argued that the incoming Kharif season was the reason why its matter had to be taken up urgently.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
