Infringement and Relief Against Infringement — Intellectual Property Rights II Notes

Infringement and Relief Against Infringement

Registration is only worth having if it can be enforced. The Act therefore defines exactly what counts as infringement of a registered variety and gives the owner the familiar IP remedies — an injunction to stop the copying, and damages or an account of profits to pay for it.

Infringement and reliefs — ss.64–66

A. What constitutes infringement — s.64

Infringement occurs when a person, without authority of the registered breeder:

sells, exports, imports or produces a registered variety, or
uses, sells, exports, imports or produces any other variety giving it a denomination identical or deceptively similar to a registered variety, in a way likely to confuse.

B. Standing to sue

Only the registered breeder/proprietor, his successor, agent or licensee may sue (topic 5). An unregistered variety gets no relief for infringement (s.64 read with s.65).

C. Reliefs — ss.65–66

The court may grant:

Injunction — to restrain further infringement.
Damages or an account of profits — at the plaintiff’s option.
Costs and, where appropriate, delivery-up of infringing material.

Section 64: infringement is committed where a person “not being the breeder of a variety registered under this Act or a registered agent or a registered licensee … sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without the permission of its breeder …”

In Simple Terms: Infringement = dealing in a registered variety, or using a confusingly similar denomination, without the breeder’s authority. The reliefs are the usual IP set: injunction plus damages or account of profits — but only a registered variety can sue.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — a rival sells under a similar denomination

Facts. A rival produces and sells seed under a denomination deceptively similar to a registered variety, confusing farmers.

Rule. s.64 — using a deceptively similar denomination for a registered variety is infringement; ss.65–66 give injunction and damages/account.

Apply. The rival had no authority and adopted a confusingly similar name; the registered breeder has standing to sue.

Conclusion. The breeder obtains an injunction and damages (or account of profits) against the rival.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Infringement (s.64)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Deal in registered variety without authority"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Use deceptively similar denomination"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Reliefs (s.65-66): injunction + damages/account"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Only a registered variety can sue (s.64/s.65)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Monsanto Technology LLC v Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019) — enforcement of plant-variety and related rights in India.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights II topics