Protection of Plant Varieties in Compliance with Pakistan’s Response to International Obligations

Authors

  • Muhammad Mubeen Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Law, and Ph.D in Law Scholar at International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Dr.Hafiz Aziz ur Rehman Professor, School of Law , Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21015/vtess.v10i2.1084

Abstract

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) enforces an “obligation on all member countries to protect plant varieties either by patents or by a sui generis regime or by a combination of both”. Pakistan adopted the “sui generis choice” to give protection to plant varieties. The rights of commercial breeders are protected under the present legal regime, and further, it gives positive rights to farmers. It also goes “beyond the widely recognized international sui generis regime represented by the International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties” (UPOV). In compliance with international obligations, Pakistan passed the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, 2016. This research paper discusses the new legislation and highlights its features and gaps. Further, to what extent the PBR Act can bring together Pakistan’s conflicting obligations under “the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), The Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety (CPB), and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)”?

References

Abbas, M. Z. (2020). Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 2016: Prospects and challenges for Pakistan as an agricultural country. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(3-4), 185-201.

Brahmi, P., Dua, R. P., & Dhillon, B. S. (2004). The Biological Diversity Act of India and agro-biodiversity management. Current Science, 86(5), 659-664.

Clavier, J. P. (1998). Les catégories de la propriété intellectuelle à l'épreuve des créations génétiques. Les catégories de la propriété intellectuelle à l'épreuve des créations génétiques,1-386.

Correa, C. (2020). Trade- related aspects of intellectual property rights: a commentary on the TRIPS agreement.Oxford University Press.

Cullet, P. (2001). Plant variety protection in Africa: towards compliance with the TRIPs Agreement. Journal of African Law, 45(1), 97-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0221855301001626

Das, S. K., & Cohly, H. H. P. (1995). U.S. Patent No. 5,401,504. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

De Jonge, B., Louwaars, N. P., & Kinderlerer, J. (2015). A solution to the controversy on plant variety protection in Africa. Nature Biotechnology, 33(5), 487-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3213

Ghijsen, H. C. (2002). Property rights on plant varieties: an overview. Journal of New Seeds, 4(1-2), 195-212. Is there only one effective sui generis protection that meets the obligation set out in Article 27 (3)(b) of TRIPS. Rev. Prop. Inmaterial, 18, 119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J153v04n01_15

Jördens, R. (2005). Progress of plant variety protection based on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention). World Patent Information, 27(3), 232-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2005.03.004

Law, J. R., Anderson, S. R., Jones, E. S., Nelson, B. K., Mulaosmanovic, E., & Smith, S. J. (2012). Characterization of maize germplasm: comparison of morphological datasets compiled using different approaches to data recording. Maydica, 56(1).

Liu, W., & Gu, L. (2008).Intellectual property protection of plant varieties in Asian developing countries. Biotechnology Law Report, 27(6), 525-531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2008.9903

Manicad, G. (1999). CGIAR and the private sector: Public good versus proprietary technology in agricultural research. Biotechnology and Development Monitor (Netherlands).

Mavroidis, P. C. (2005). The general agreement on tariffs and trade: a commentary. Oxford University Press.

Munyi, P. (2015). Plant variety protection regime in relation to relevant international obligations: implications for smallholder farmers in Kenya. The Journal of world intellectual property, 18(1-2), 65-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12031

Plahe, J. K. (2011). TRIPS downhill: India's plant variety protection system and implications for small farmers. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 41(1), 75-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2011.530038

Pakistan. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 49(6), 700-713.

Rangnekar, D. (1999). Technology paradigms and the innovation—Appropriation interface: An examination of the nature and scope of Plant Breeders' Rights. Prometheus, 17(2), 125-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08109029908629545

Sadaf, N. (2018). Legislative Developments in the Protection of Plant Breeders’ Rights in

Sanderson, J. (2017). Plants, people and practices: the nature and history of the UPOV Convention (Vol. 37). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316411216

Santilli, J. (2012). Agrobiodiversity and the Law: regulating genetic resources, food security and cultural diversity. Routledge.

Yazdani, A. T., & Ali, N. (2017). Seed policy in Pakistan: The impact of new laws on food sovereignty and sustainable development. Lahore Journal of Policy Studies, 7(1), 77.

Downloads

Published

2022-06-30

How to Cite

Mubeen, M., & Rehman, D. A. ur. (2022). Protection of Plant Varieties in Compliance with Pakistan’s Response to International Obligations. VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, 10(2), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.21015/vtess.v10i2.1084

Issue

Section

Articles