IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Sungro Seeds Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
S.K. Tripathi & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Suit (O S) No. 1163 of 2013; Interlocutory Application No. 9631 of 2013, 9632 of 2013, 9633 of 2013, 10077 of 2013, 14827 of 2013, 1402 of 2014
Decided On : 15-05-2020
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - PLANT VARIETY - PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES AND FARMERS' RIGHTS ACT, 2001 (PPVFR ACT) - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - BAR OF JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM DISCLOSING OR USING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF PLAINTIFF INCLUDING ALL PARENTAL MATERIALS ETC., TO DEFENDANT NO.3 OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANT NO.3 FROM DISCLOSING OR USING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF PLAINTIFF DERIVED FROM DEFENDANTS NO.1&2 - SUIT FOR DELIVERY DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO DELIVER ALL THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, DATA AND PARENTAL MATERIALS OF PLAINTIFF PERTAINING TO SCFH-130 OR ANY OTHER PRODUCT ETC. - WHETHER MAINTAINABLE - HELD, SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a company engaged in research, production, processing, marketing and sale of high quality hybrids and varietal seeds, instituted a suit against defendants No.1 and 2, its ex-employees, and defendant No.3, a competitor, for infringement of its intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, copyright and other intellectual property rights, in relation to a hybrid cauliflower seed variety developed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants No.1 and 2 had access to the plaintiff's intellectual property, including trade secrets, and that they had joined the employment of defendant No.3, which was marketing a hybrid cauliflower seed variety that was identical to the plaintiff's variety. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants No.1 and 2 had breached their employment agreement and representation to the plaintiff, and that defendant No.3 had indulged in unfair competition by wrongfully exploiting the plaintiff's valuable confidential information, trade secrets, copyright and other intellectual property rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit was not maintainable. The Court found that the plaintiff's rights in the hybrid cauliflower seed variety were inchoate and not crystallized till grant of registration under the PPVFR Act. The Court further found that the Registrar of Plant Varieties was not entitled to, pending registration, restrain another from commercially exploiting the plant variety, registration of which is sought. The Court held that the same reasoning applied to the present case, and that the Civil Court was not entitled to protect the claimed rights till crystallized by way of registration.
Issues: Whether the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from disclosing or using confidential information of the plaintiff, injunction restraining the defendant No.3 from disclosing or using the confidential information of the plaintiff derived from defendants No.1&2, and delivery directing the defendants to deliver all the confidential information, data and parental materials of the plaintiff pertaining to SCFH-130 or any other product etc. is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff's rights in the hybrid cauliflower seed variety were inchoate and not crystallized till grant of registration under the PPVFR Act. The Court further found that the Registrar of Plant Varieties was not entitled to, pending registration, restrain another from commercially exploiting the plant variety, registration of which is sought. The Court held that the same reasoning applied to the present case, and that the Civil Court was not entitled to protect the claimed rights till crystallized by way of registration.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - Ia No.10058/2013 (of the defendant no.3 under Order VII R-11 CPC).
1. The defendant no.3 Nuziveedu Seeds Private Limited seeks rejection of the plaint.
2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, pleading (i) that the plaintiff is in the business of research, production, processing, marketing and sale of high quality hybrids and varietal seeds; (ii) that the defendant no.1 Dr. S.K. Tripathi and defendant no.2 Mr. Akhalesh Shukla are ex-employees of the plaintiff who have joined the employment of and are currently employed with the defendant no.3, a competitor of the plaintiff; (iii) that the plaintiff, to protect sensitive and confidential information relating to the product and product development know-how, varieties, hybrids, parent-lines, breeding strategies and associated know-how and trade secrets developed by the plaintiff, requires its employees to, at the time of joining the plaintiff company, enter into an employment agreement and undertake not to disclose any such sensitive and confidential information to any third party during the course of employment and at any time thereafter; (iv) the plaintiff also mandates its employees to execute a Deed of Assignment of all rights, title and interest to any and all intellectual property developed by the employee or in the development of which the employee has contributed, during the term of the employment with the plaintiff, to the plaintiff; (v) similar contracts were executed by the defendants no.1&2 also; (vi) that the defendants no.1&2 had access to the plaintiff''s intellectual property including trade secrets such as the parent lines of the plaintiff''s hybrids and seeds used for cultivation of the parent lines of the plaintiff''s hybrids, breeding strategies etc.; (vii) one of the hybrid varieties developed by the plaintiff is the Cauliflower Hybrid no.SCFH-130 sold in the market under the name ''Katreena'', which was released for commercial sale in the year 2006; (viii) that the defendant no.1 joined the plaintiff''s predecessor on 1st January, 2001 as General Manager in Research Development Department and was responsible for conducting all research and development activities in relation to vegetable seeds of the plaintiff; (ix) that the defendant no.2 joined the plaintiff''s predecessor on 1st January, 2001 as a Senior Field Assistant and was further designated as Technical Officer in the R&D Department; (x) the defendant no.1 supervised research and development activities of the plaintiff''s hybrid seeds including the research relating to SCFH-130; (xi) the defendant no.2 had access to the plaintiff''s confidential and sensitive information, data, breeding strategies and information for Cauliflower Hybrids including SCFH-130; (xii) that the defendant no.1 left the services of the plaintiff on 5th April, 2008; (xiii) that the defendant no.2 left the services of the plaintiff on 18th December, 2008; (xiv) that the defendants no.1&2 are currently employed with the defendant no.3; (xv) the defendants no.l&2, at the time of joining the services of the plaintiff, had entered into employment agreement whereunder they had agreed to keep confidential all matters relating to their job and employment with the plaintiff and not to give to anyone any particulars or details of any of the research, process or of administrative and/or organizational matter of confidential nature to which they would come across during the course of their employment with the plaintiff; (xvi) the defendants no.1&2 had also executed Assignment Deeds as aforesaid; (xvii) the defendants no.1&2 had also submitted representations to not disclose to any third party any information obtained by them by virtue of nature of their duty with the plaintiff; (xviii) in the last week of October, 2010, the plaintiff came across packets of hybrid cauliflower seeds in the market which carried the photographs of the plaintiff''s hybrid cauliflower SCFH-130, being marketed under the name ''
Abhinav Gupta vs. JCB India Ltd.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala
Emergent Genetics vs. Shailendra Shivam
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. T.M. Nagarajan
John Richard Brady vs. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.
Mumbai Kamagar Sabha Bombay VS. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai
Navigators Logistics Ltd. vs. Kashif Qureshi
Niranjan Shankar Golikari vs. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Novartis AG vs. Union of India
P. Asokan vs. Western India Plywoods Ltd. Cannanore
Percept D Mark (India) (P) Ltd. vs. Zaheer Khan
Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay
Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava vs. Union of India
Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. vs. Krishan Murgai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.