JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 56 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers. Rights Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenging the order dated 3rd December, 2021 (in short, `Impugned Order') passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority"), revoking the appellant's registration with respect to plant variety-FL 2027 potato variety, on the grounds provided under Section 34(a), (b), (c) and (h) of the Act. The appellant further challenges the Authority's letter dated 11.02.2022, rejecting the appellant's application for renewal of its registration.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a subsidiary of PepsiCo Inc. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution, and sale of various products including non-alcoholic beverages sold under the brand names/trade marks `Pepsi', `Mirinda', `7UP', etc., packaged drinking water sold under the brand name/trademark `AQUAFINA', caffeinated beverages, fruit juices, and salted snacks and foods such as potato chips sold under the brand name/trade mark `LAY.S' and `Uncle Chipps'.

3. The appellant claims that FL 2027 is a chipping potato variety with low external defects, high dry matter/high solids content and stable sugars, all of which make it highly suitable for the manufacture of chips. Because of these qualities, however, it requires more time and energy in the cooking process, making it unsuitable for use as a table potato or for everyday cooking in households. The appellant uses it for the manufacture of potato chips under the Lay's brand.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the potato variety FL 2027 (commercial name-FC-5) was developed in USA by Dr. Robert W. Hoopes, a plant breeder and a former employee of Frito-Lay Agricultural Research, a division of PepsiCo Inc., which is the parent company of the appellant. It is asserted that the appellant and its predecessors-in-interest have carried out extensive studies, trials, research and development, and have spent huge amounts of money towards the development of the registered variety.

5. The appellant asserts that Dr. Robert W. Hoopes assigned his rights in FL 2027 to Recot Inc., a group Company of PepsiCo Inc. and a Delaware Corporation, by a Deed of Assignment dated 26.09.2003. Recot Inc. subsequently changed its name to Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as FLNA) on 20.01.2004. The appellant asserts that FLNA and the appellant are both group companies of PepsiCo Inc., and by virtue of their corporate relationship and the fact that the appellant is incorporated in India and carries on its business in India, FLNA permitted the appellant to develop and use FL 2027 and seek registration for FL 2027 under the Act.

6. The appellant applied for registration of FL 2027 variety under the Act on 18.02.2011. The Registrar, vide letter dated 02.06.2011, raised certain queries on the application. The appellant clarified the same vide its letter dated 09.06.2011. The appellant thereafter filed a revised application on 16.02.2012, giving details of the application made for seeking registration of FL 2027 in the United States of America (USA) patent office on 10.06.2003, however, the appellant due to a bona fide mistake ticked the box in the form depicting FL 2027 as a `New Variety', with the date of commercialisation as 17.12.2009 in I