Belgian Court Finds Plant Variety Rights Infringement

Plant Variety Rights Decision
DEPOSITPHOTOS.COM / © Alex Postovski

On December 3, 2012, a court in the city of Ghent, Belgium ruled that bromeliad ornamental plant varieties marketed under the names “Starlight” and “Catherine” were indistinguishable from a protected variety known as “Calypso,” and thus the marketing and sale of the Starlight  and Catherine plants infringed the intellectual property rights of the Calypso variety owners. Pieters v. NV Deroose Plants, No. A/09/03215 (Ghent Dec. 3, 2012).

On behalf of their company, Exotic Plant, the claimants, Luc Pieters and Caroline De Meyer, obtained national plant variety rights certificates for the Calypso variety in Belgium in 1999, and in the Netherlands in 2000. After discovering that the defendant, Deroose Plants, was selling plants that appeared to be identical to the Calypso variety, the claimants sued Deroose for plant variety rights infringement.

In finding no appreciable differences among the plants, the court relied to a significant degree on the findings of external experts. Comparisons of DNA from the Calypso, Starlight, and Catherine plants conducted by the Agricultural Research Center of Ghent revealed them to be very genetically similar to one another.  In addition, the Centre for Genetic Resources in Wageningen grew samples of the defendant’s supposed varieties and found no relevant phenotypic differences between them and Calypso.

The court ordered Deroose to cease selling the infringing plants on the Belgian and Dutch markets. to destroy all remaining propagating material, and to pay provisional damages in excess of €100,000. The court appointed an expert to calculate any additional damages not covered by its order. Finally, the court ordered that its judgment be published in two specialized journals of the claimants’ choice.

For more information in English, see Belgian court convicts Deroose Plants of PVR infringement, Florint.org (Dec. 20, 2012).

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Agricultural Law, Intellectual Property Law and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.