- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within International Law, Immigration and Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
In the matter of Bayer Cropscience Limited v Harlal Seeds Private Limited, I.A. No. 222 of 2025 and I.A. No. 225 of 2025 in COS No. 13 of 2025 (collectively, ‘Applications’), the Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (‘Court’) passed two orders dated 11 February 2026 (‘Orders’): (i) granting an interim injunction restraining Harlal Seeds Private Limited (‘Defendant’) from producing, marketing, distributing, or selling its hybrid maize variety “SHINGO GOLD”, which was found to be prima facie identical to Bayer Cropscience Limited's (‘Plaintiff’) registered hybrid maize variety “IG7806”; and (ii) appointing a Local Commissioner to collect seed samples and conduct an inventory at the Defendant's premises, with directions to the Government of Telangana laboratory at Telangana International Seed Testing Authority (‘TISTA’) to conduct an independent DNA test.
I. Factual Background
The Plaintiff is a part of the Bayer Group and holds registration for hybrid maize variety IG7806 under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (‘PPVFR Act’). The variety, originally developed and registered in the name of Monsanto India Limited (‘MIL’), was transferred to the Plaintiff pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation between MIL and the Plaintiff, approved by the National Company Law Tribunal by its order dated 13 September 2019. IG7806 is commercially marketed under the brand “DEKALB” and its sub-brands “DKC 9108” and “DKC 9108 PLUS” since 2011; “DKC 9108” and “DKC 9108 PLUS” were merely names given to the registered variety IG7806. The registration for hybrid maize variety IG7806, first granted on 27 April 2016, was subsequently renewed in the name of the Plaintiff for a further period of 9 years with effect from 12 February 2025.
The Defendant, a Telangana-incorporated entity engaged in hybrid seed development and marketing, sells maize seeds under the brand names “SHINGO” and “SHINGO GOLD”. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's variety “SHINGO GOLD” is a copied and infringing version of IG7806, produced by misappropriating the Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential parental lines H5683Z and HCL658, which are maintained as trade secrets and developed through 5 to 8 years of extensive research and development. The Plaintiff further alleged that access to these two parental lines is strictly controlled through secured facilities, biometric access, CCTV monitoring, and confidentiality agreements.
In support of its case, the Plaintiff produced: (i) an in-house Distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability (‘DUS’) test report dated 20 August 2024 comparing IG7806 with SHINGO GOLD across 31 morphological characteristics, all of which were found to be identical at every stage of observation; (ii) a DNA fingerprinting report dated 6 December 2024 issued by Bio-Informatics Department, Research and Development Division, Redcliffe Lifetech Private Limited, Noida, concluding that IG7806 and SHINGO GOLD exhibit identical genotypes; and (iii) an independent expert opinion dated 20 August 2024 confirming that IG7806/DKC 9108 and SHINGO GOLD are phenotypically identical.
II. Issues
The Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from producing, marketing, distributing, or selling the SHINGO GOLD variety under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and Section 66(2) of the PPVFR Act; and
- Whether a Local Commissioner ought to be appointed under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 66(2) of the PPVFR Act, to collect samples and conduct an inventory at the Defendant's premises.
III. Rival Contentions
On the interim injunction (I.A. No. 222 of 2025):
The Plaintiff contended that IG7806 is a registered plant variety under the PPVFR Act, conferring upon them exclusive rights under Section 28 of the PPVFR Act to produce, sell, market, distribute, import, and export the variety. The Plaintiff argued that the DUS test, DNA test, and independent expert opinion collectively established a prima facie case of infringement. It further contended that continued sale of SHINGO GOLD at a lower price would cause irreparable loss to the Plaintiff's market share, which could not be recovered in monetary terms, and that the balance of convenience lies in its favour.
The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s allegations were vague, speculative, and unsupported by particulars. Specific averments include that the Plaintiff had failed to establish how the Defendant accessed or reverse-engineered the parental lines. The Defendant further argued that: (i) the DUS and DNA reports were in-house documents prepared by the Plaintiff, and therefore lacked credibility and evidentiary value; (ii) the bill of purchase for SHINGO GOLD seeds bore a date earlier than the packing date printed on the packet, suggesting that the Plaintiff had fabricated evidence; (iii) the registered variety IG7806 is not sold under that name directly, and the sub-brands DKC 9108 and DKC 9108 Plus are not registered with the PPVFR authority; (iv) the registration of IG7806 had not been automatically transferred to the Plaintiff upon amalgamation, and the application for change of registered proprietor remained pending; and (v) the Defendant's seeds were priced higher than those of the Plaintiff, refuting the allegation of price undercutting.
On the appointment of Local Commissioner (I.A. No. 225 of 2025):
The Plaintiff contended that appointment of a Local Commissioner was necessary to preserve evidence, to negate the Defendant’s challenge to the credibility of the existing reports, and to prevent the Defendant from concealing, tampering with, or destroying material evidence upon service of the suit papers.
The Defendant contended that the application was an abuse of process filed with the ulterior motive of gaining access to the Defendant's confidential and proprietary business information. It further argued that a Local Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of gathering evidence to support a party’s case, and that the Plaintiff's own reports, if deemed reliable, rendered such appointment unnecessary.
IV. Findings and Decision
On the interim injunction:
The Court found that the registration of IG7806 stood confirmed in the name of the Plaintiff by virtue of Exhibit A6 produced by the Plaintiff, which evidenced the mutation of the registration and renewal for 9 years with effect from 12 February 2025. Relying on Calcutta High Court’s judgement in Pan Seeds Private Limited v Ramnagar Seeds Private Limited and Others, the Court affirmed that once a plant variety is duly registered under the PPVFR Act, the breeder is entitled to the full statutory protection flowing from such registration, including the right to restrain any third party from producing, selling, or marketing a deceptively similar or identical variety. The Court further noted that a registered plant variety under Section 24 of the PPVFR Act is not subject to the test of validity by civil courts.
The Court held that the DUS test, DNA fingerprinting report, and independent expert opinion collectively established a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff, demonstrating that all 31 morphological characteristics of IG7806 and SHINGO GOLD were identical. The Court noted that the Defendant had not disclosed whether SHINGO GOLD was itself a registered variety and had failed to produce any material to independently establish the origin or distinctiveness of its variety. Relying on Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Limited v Sudhir Bhatia, the Court held that where a prima facie case is made out in an intellectual property matter, an interim injunction should ordinarily follow. The Court found that the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff and that continued sale of SHINGO GOLD at a lower price would cause irreparable loss to the Plaintiff's market share. Accordingly, the Court allowed I.A. No. 222 of 2025 and restrained the Defendant from infringing IG7806/DKC 9108/DKC 9108 PLUS by producing, marketing, distributing, or selling the SHINGO GOLD variety until disposal of the suit.
On the appointment of Local Commissioner:
The Court observed that the determination of infringement in this case necessarily involves scientific investigation, and that a comparison by way of DNA and DUS testing was essential to establish the alleged infringement. The Court noted that while the Plaintiff had produced in-house reports, the Defendant had questioned their credibility, making it necessary to obtain an independent scientific assessment. Invoking Section 66(2) of the PPVFR Act which empowers the Court to pass interlocutory orders for discovery of documents, preservation of infringing material, and preservation of other evidence relating to the subject matter of the suit, the Court held that appointment of a Local Commissioner was necessary in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with directions to: (i) collect samples of IG7806 and SHINGO GOLD from the open market and from the Defendant's premises in the presence of both counsels or their nominees; (ii) send the samples to the laboratory at TISTA, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad for DNA testing; (iii) conduct an inventory of products lying at the Defendant's premises; and (iv) preserve all digital data and communications relating to SHINGO GOLD found at the Defendant's premises. Both parties were directed to submit leaf samples and markers of their respective parental lines to TISTA, which was directed to maintain confidentiality of the same.
V. Comments and Conclusion
The Orders are a significant affirmation of plant breeders' rights under the PPVFR Act in the context of hybrid seed infringement disputes. The Court's readiness to grant interim injunctive relief on the basis of in-house DUS and DNA reports, while simultaneously ordering an independent scientific assessment through a court-appointed commissioner, reflects a pragmatic approach to the evidentiary challenges caused by technical nature of the subject matter inherent in plant variety infringement litigation. In this regard, several aspects of the Orders merit attention which are elaborated in the following paragraphs.
First, the Court's treatment of the registration transfer issue is noteworthy. The Defendant argued that the registration of IG7806 had not automatically transferred to the Plaintiff upon amalgamation and that the application for change of registered proprietor remained pending. The Court effectively resolved this at the interim stage by accepting Exhibit A6 produced by the Plaintiff, i.e., the PPV authority's confirmation of renewal of registration in the Plaintiff's name, as sufficient evidence of the Plaintiff's title, without requiring formal adjudication of the transfer.
Second, the Court's application of Midas Hygiene to plant variety infringement cases reinforces the view that once a prima facie case is made out, an interim injunction should follow – which in the present case was deemed to have been made out on the basis of in-house testing.
Third, the dual orders, i.e one granting injunctive relief and the other directing independent scientific testing, create an interesting dynamic. The injunction operates immediately to restrain the Defendant, while the Commissioner's report and TISTA's DNA test results will serve as independent evidence for the purposes of the final hearing. This approach ensures that the Plaintiff's rights are protected pending trial, while also addressing the Defendant's legitimate objection regarding the reliability of in-house reports.
Finally, the direction to TISTA to maintain confidentiality of the parental line markers submitted by both parties is a practically important safeguard, given that such markers constitute core trade secrets in the seed industry.
It remains to be seen whether the appellate court i.e. the High Court for the State of Telangana will take a different view on the sufficiency of in-house testing as a basis for interim relief. The TISTA DNA test report, once available, is likely to be determinative of the infringement question at the trial stage.
Lastly, while enforcement of plant breeders’ rights has historically been a relatively niche area within Indian intellectual property jurisprudence, the Orders provide a clear silver lining for plant breeders by reaffirming that their statutory rights under the PPVFR Act will receive robust protection from courts across all levels of the Indian judicial hierarchy.
The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact Khaitan & Co at editors@khaitanco.com.
