Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4687127,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&#039; Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line

India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot; title=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4687127,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 38995
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&#039; Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line

India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot; title=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu Business Line

India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line<br /><br /><em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br /></em><br />The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br /><br />The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br /><br />After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br /><br /><em>Many questions<br /></em><br />PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br /><br />The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br /><br />The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br /><br /><em>Indian version<br /></em><br />Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br /><br />Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br /><br />Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece" title="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4687127,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&#039; Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line

India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot; title=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4687127,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 38995
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&#039; Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line

India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot; title=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu Business Line

India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line<br /><br /><em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br /></em><br />The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br /><br />The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br /><br />After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br /><br /><em>Many questions<br /></em><br />PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br /><br />The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br /><br />The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br /><br /><em>Indian version<br /></em><br />Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br /><br />Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br /><br />Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece" title="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f9513aa1890-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4687127,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&#039; Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line

India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot; title=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 38995,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4687127,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 38995
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&#039; Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line

India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;India&amp;rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &amp;ldquo;illegally&amp;rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&amp;rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many questions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&amp;rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &amp;rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indian version&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&amp;rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &amp;ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&amp;rdquo; (emphasis added).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot; title=&quot;https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu Business Line

India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line<br /><br /><em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br /></em><br />The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br /><br />The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br /><br />After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br /><br /><em>Many questions<br /></em><br />PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br /><br />The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br /><br />The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br /><br /><em>Indian version<br /></em><br />Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br /><br />Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br /><br />Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece" title="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 38995,
		'title' => 'Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu Business Line<br />
<br />
<em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br />
</em><br />
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br />
<br />
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br />
<br />
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br />
<br />
<em>Many questions<br />
</em><br />
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br />
<br />
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br />
<br />
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br />
<br />
<em>Indian version<br />
</em><br />
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br />
<br />
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br />
<br />
Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br />
<br />
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4687127,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 38995,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu Business Line

India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line<br /><br /><em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br /></em><br />The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br /><br />The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br /><br />After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br /><br /><em>Many questions<br /></em><br />PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br /><br />The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br /><br />The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br /><br /><em>Indian version<br /></em><br />Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br /><br />Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br /><br />Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece" title="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 38995,
	'title' => 'Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu Business Line<br />
<br />
<em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br />
</em><br />
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br />
<br />
The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br />
<br />
After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br />
<br />
<em>Many questions<br />
</em><br />
PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br />
<br />
The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br />
<br />
The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br />
<br />
<em>Indian version<br />
</em><br />
Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br />
<br />
Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br />
<br />
Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br />
<br />
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu Business Line, 7 May, 2019, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case-biswajit-dhar-4687127',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4687127,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 38995
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar'
$metaKeywords = 'Potato Farming,Potato Production,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act 2001,Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers? Rights Act,PepsiCo,International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties,UPOV'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu Business Line

India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo 

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line<br /><br /><em>India&rsquo;s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo <br /></em><br />The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers&rsquo; Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for &ldquo;illegally&rdquo; growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA.<br /><br />The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety.<br /><br />After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers&rsquo; organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements.<br /><br /><em>Many questions<br /></em><br />PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises.<br /><br />The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).<br /><br />The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders&rsquo; rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV &rsquo;91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. <br /><br /><em>Indian version<br /></em><br />Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers&rsquo; Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours.<br /><br />Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are &ldquo;entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act&rdquo; (emphasis added).<br /><br />Please <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece" title="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Points of law in the PepsiCo-potato case -Biswajit Dhar

-The Hindu Business Line India’s Protection of Plant Varieties Act spells out rights of farmers vis-a-vis breeders, which resulted in a pushback for PepsiCo The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPVFRA), which introduced intellectual property protection in Indian agriculture, faced its biggest test in its implementation phase of nearly a decade and a half, when PepsiCo India initiated legal proceedings against four farmers in Gujarat for “illegally” growing its potato variety registered under the PPVFRA. The company applied for the registration of two hybrid potato varieties FL 1867 and FL 2027 in February 2011. These varieties were registered under the PPVFRA in February 2016 for a period of 15 years. PepsiCo marketed the latter variety under the trademark FC-5, and now is claiming that the Gujarat farmers are illegally using this variety. After the bases of the cases were questioned, especially by farmers’ organisations, the company withdrew its cases, not before trying to bind the farmers it had framed, into its contractual arrangements. Many questions PepsiCo may have withdrawn the cases against the farmers, but this unsavoury occurrence brought to the fore many questions that were asked when the PPVFRA was on the drawing board. These questions span from some of the contentious provisions of the Act, to the manner in which it is being implemented. If these issues are not dealt with in keeping the spirit of the law, and perhaps more importantly, their potential adverse implications on farming communities, farmer-breeder conflicts could become more frequent and this would only push the farmers into deeper crises. The PPVFRA was enacted in 2001 after engaging debates were held in the country for more than a decade as to how intellectual property rights should be introduced in Indian agriculture after the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and agreed to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The choice before India was to either enact a law that protected the interests of farming communities, or to accept the framework of plant breeders’ rights given by the International Union for Protection of New Plant Varieties (better known by its French acronym, UPOV Convention). The latter option was rejected primarily because the current version of UPOV, which was adopted in 1991 (UPOV ’91), denies the farmers the freedom to re-use farm saved seeds and to exchange them with their neighbours. Indian version Therefore, in the PPVFRA, India introduced a chapter on Farmers’ Rights, which has three legs: one, farmers are recognised as plant breeders and they can register their varieties; two, farmers engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation are recognised and rewarded; and, three, protecting the traditional practices of the farmers of saving seeds from one harvest and using the saved seeds either for sowing for their next harvest or sharing them with their farm neighbours. Article 39(1)(iv), which sanctifies the last-mentioned rights, states that farmers are “entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act” (emphasis added). Please click here to read more.