TRIPS FLEXIBILITIES AND INDIA’S PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION REGIME: THE WAY FORWARD
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement provides that members shall provide for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis protection or both. While WTO member countries can choose from among intellectual property strategies to protect plant varieties, they may not choose to exclude plant varieties from IP rights protection without facing trade sanctions from the WTO dispute resolution body. The open-ended language of the article creates a flexible standard of protection sympathetic to developing nations’ socio-economic priorities, provided that the effectiveness requirement is satisfied. This flexibility presents a range of possibilities from systems like the plant patent regime of the United States or specific variety protection systems of the European Union to the possibility of customized plant protection regimes suited to the needs of developing nations.
India, while complying with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement for the protection of plant varieties, enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. The fundamental ideology of the PPVFR Act is to address India’s concerns about protecting the rights of small and marginal farming communities, while at the same time promoting plant breeding by vesting adequate IP rights protection which will boost further research and innovation in this field.
This paper argues that as it is necessary to recognize and protect the rights of farmers in respect of their contribution made at any time in conserving, improving and making available plant genetic resources for the development of new plant varieties, the PPVFR Act has maintained a balance between breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights. The PPVFR Act protects farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange and share all farm produce, including seeds that fall within the purview of the Act, and it provides protection of indigenous knowledge against unwary monetization.
About the AuthorsR. Moonka
Assistant Professor of Law, Head of the Centre for ADR
SGHighway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382481
Assistant Professor of Law
SG Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382481
1. Antons C. Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 89 (2010).
2. Heald P.J. Mowing the Playing Field: Addressing Information Distortion and Asymmetry in the TRIPS Game, 88 Minnesota Law Review 249 (2003).
3. Long D.E. The Impact of Foreign Investment on Indigenous Culture: An Intellectual Property Perspective, 23 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 229 (1998).
4. Ragavan S. &. Mayer J. Has India Addressed Its Farmers’ Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Georgetown Environmental Law Review 97 (2007).
5. Ranjan P. Recent Developments in India’s Plant Variety Protection, Seed Regulation and Linkages with UPOV’s Proposed Membership, 12(3) Journal of World Intellectual Property 219 (2009).
6. Straus J. Bargaining Around the TRIPS Agreement: The Case for Ongoing PublicPrivate Initiatives to Facilitate Worldwide Intellectual Property Transactions, 9 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 91 (1998).
For citation: Moonka R., Mukherjee S. TRIPS FLEXIBILITIES AND INDIA’S PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION REGIME: THE WAY FORWARD. BRICS Law Journal. 2018;5(1):117-139. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-5-1-117-139
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.