"One Variety, One Name" Rule: Implications on PVP Enforcement from Supreme People's Court Decision in China

Enforcing intellectual property rights, specifically plant variety rights (PVP), is more challenging than the registration process in most of the countries. Although, many countries have set records of PVP applications (>5,000 to 15,000) but substantial efforts are still needed to attract investment and make PVP as a priority for companies. It is noted that government agencies, associations, companies, and courts are taking steps to enhance awareness on enforcement of rights. However, courts are playing a crucial role through judicial interpretations to reform IP in the Seed sector[i].

This post discusses a landmark 2024 ruling by China's Supreme People's Court (SPC), emphasising the "one variety, one name" rule. This decision highlights that consistent naming is not just a technical requirement but a legal and ethical responsibility, balancing breeder rights with market transparency and strengthening the agricultural sector.

The Republic of China began its journey in plant variety protection with the promulgation of the Regulations for the Protection of New Plant Varieties in 1997, which were implemented in 1999. China agreed to the 1978 UPOV Convention but did not adopt the 1991 version. In March 2022, China has revised its Seed Law [ii] ?to further strengthen intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in the seed industry. These changes have reportedly led to a 6-billion-yuan ($839 million) investment by seed R&D companies

Background: This case underscores the importance of adhering to naming regulations in plant variety infringement cases in China. An Anhui-based company developed a rice variety named "Fengnuo 1246," which went through trials and was approved under the Seed Law in 2016. In 2015, the company applied for plant variety protection (PVP) under the name "Liannuo No. 2," securing protection in 2019. Despite these separate processes, the company continued to use both names for the material. This company later filed a lawsuit in a lower court, claiming that "Fengnuo 1246" and "Liannuo No. 2" were the same variety and accusing a Donghai-based company of infringement by selling seeds under the name "Wandao 68." The Anhui company argued that "Liannuo No. 2" and "Fengnuo 1246" had identical characteristics, and that the unauthorized sale of "Wandao 68" constituted infringement. While the lower court ruled in favor of the Anhui company, the Donghai company appealed, and the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) ultimately overturned the lower court’s decision.

The findings from the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) decision are summarized as follows:

1. The continued use of two names ("Liannuo No. 2" and "Fengnuo 1246") for the same variety in applications under the Seed Law and PVP law violated the “one variety, one name” regulation. This rule mandates that a plant variety can only have a single, unique name, which must not be identical or similar to other registered varieties or well-known trademarks. The prolonged use of two names did not prove they referred to the same variety; instead, it suggested they represented different varieties.
2. The “one variety, one name” regulation aims to prevent confusion from “one variety, multiple names” or “multiple varieties, one name” scenarios. Although an explanation for the naming inconsistency was provided, it was based largely on the rights holder’s subjective understanding and had limited probative value. The Anhui company also failed to supply additional evidence to confirm that both names referred to the same variety.
3. Consistency in naming should be demonstrated by the rights holder in registered and approved varieties. Since "Fengnuo 1246" was already in use before the PVP application, and no evidence supported a renaming/change to "Liannuo No. 2," it was difficult to confirm that the two names were for the same variety.
4. The breeding subjects for the two varieties were also not identical.
5. Additionally, the evidence provided by the Anhui company was insufficient to prove that the alleged infringing seeds were identical to the protected variety "Liannuo No. 2." Consequently, the SPC overturned the lower court’s ruling, resulting in a decision against the Anhui company.

Conclusion and Implications The SPC ruling emphasizes that a new plant variety’s name must be unique and serve as a clear identifier, distinguishing it from other varieties. While different names may be used internally during the breeding process, a single, consistent name must be applied in all external applications and practices, such as PVP protection, variety approval, registration, promotion, and sale. If a variety's granted name differs from its approved name, it is assumed they do not represent the same variety.

In infringement cases, where a rights holder claims that two differently named varieties are identical, substantial evidence is required to support this assertion. This judgment is a strong reminder for companies to ensure naming consistency and adhere to regulatory standards, as ambiguity can undermine intellectual property rights. The SPC’s decision reinforces that consistent naming is more than a technical formality; it is a legal and ethical responsibility that balances breeder rights with market transparency, ultimately supporting a stronger agricultural sector.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize that India’s seed sector currently faces various naming scenarios including “one variety, one name,” “multiple names for one variety,” and “one name, multiple varieties.” due to non-alignment among laws (Seed Act 1966, Seed Control order1983, Trademark Act 1999 and PPV&FR Act 2001). Companies often have their own reasons for adopting these naming approaches. However, if these practices remain unchecked, they could lead to enforcement challenges for PPV&FR Act and risk misleading farmers, who rely on clear identification to make informed choices. Addressing these naming issues proactively will be essential to safeguard intellectual property rights in the seed sector. By taking action now, we can better equip enforcement agencies and companies to protect these rights and promote transparency in the future.

#PlantVarietyProtection#SeedLaw#OneVarietyOneName#ChinaSPC

[i] China’s New Judicial Interpretation on Harmonizing Plant Variety Protection with IP Reforms and Agricultural Policy by Mark Cohen: https://chinaipr.com/2021/10/10/chinas-new-judicial-interpretation-on-harmonizing-plant-variety-protection-with-ip-reforms-and-agricultural-policy-in-chinas-new-judicial-interpretation/

[ii]Final revised seeds law of China :https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Final%20Seed%20Law%20Published_Beijing_China%20-%20People%27s%20Republic%20of_12-24-2021.pdf