Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6, pp. 142–159 doi: 10.1002/jwip.12026 Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand Paw...
Author: Maria Dorsey
0 downloads 0 Views 195KB Size
The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6, pp. 142–159 doi: 10.1002/jwip.12026

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand Pawarit Lertdhamtewe Bangkok University, Thailand

Thailand’s plant protection regime presents a unique sui generis plant protection system, which is used as a model by several developing nations in Asia. The current Thai Plant Variety Protection (PVP) law has attracted some criticism, and whether or not farmers and breeders actually benefit from the system is in doubt. The questions this situation raises are: has Thailand adopted clear, coherent, and workable rules for plant variety protection in response to the needs of the nation? By highlighting the salient features of the Thai plant protection regime, this article addresses major concerns of the rights of farmers, local communities, and plant breeders. It is suggested that the protection of plant varieties is vital to Thailand, considering the fact that agriculture represents a fundamental economic activity and the livelihood of a large section of the total population; therefore, introducing IPRs in agriculture via the PVP regime is critical to the development of agriculture in Thailand. Thus, a new approach to the IP protection of plant varieties is desirable to ensure the unique needs of the nation, the validity of national legislation, and the long-term promotion of agricultural development and sustainability in Thailand. Keywords plant variety protection; sui generis; breeders- rights; farmers- rights

Introduction Thailand’s plant protection regime currently represented by the Plant Variety Protection Act B.E.2542 (AD1999) (PVP Act)1 is an outcome of Thailand’s joining the World Trade Organization and adherence to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).2 The Thai PVP Act represents a sui generis system of protection for plant varieties, which is different from the sui generis model available through the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of plants (UPOV)3 (Mechlem, 2010). Like other developing member countries, Thailand construed the term “sui generis” system in TRIPS Article 27.3(b) as allowing it discretion to determine the type and design of plant protection regime it adopted (Lertdhamtewe, 2012). In enacting the PVP Act, Thailand took advantage of the flexibility of Article 27.3(b) to establish a “self-serving” sui generis regime that took a “balanced” approach to plant protection (Lertdhamtewe, 2012). It is estimated that more than one-third of the 60 million Thai population (21,778, 677) are farmers and although most of the seed today is marketed by major seed corporations, such as Chia Tai and Monsanto, farmers are still a significant source of seed supply. Empirical evidence indicates that farmers produce 20% of the seeds required for agriculture in Thailand (Lertdhamtewe, 2014a). To respond to the complexity of farming in the country, the central tenet of the Thai PVP Act specifically addresses Thailand’s major concerns to protect local farming communities; at the same time, it promoted the breeding of innovative plants by establishing intellectual property protection. Thus, the Thai PVP Act divided plant varieties into two main categories: (1) new plant varieties, and (2) extant varieties (local domestic plants, general domestic plants, and wild plant varieties) as a means to promote agricultural development. The introduction of Thailand’s PVP Act, as a result of fulfilling its TRIPS obligations, was noticed by the rest of the world. Firstly, the Act highlighted the complexity of farming in the country, which required balancing of benefits of both farmers and breeders (Kuanpoth, 2007; Lertdhamtewe, 2012). Secondly, the Thai PVP Act emerged as a unique sui generis regime of plant protection, which is used as a model by several developing nations in Asia (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a). The Thai PVP Act was mainly passed because 142

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Thailand hoped to benefit by structuring a plant protection regime to best serve its local needs (Lertdhamtewe, 2012). However, the Thai PVP Act was not without flaws; it currently faces a great deal of criticisms (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). Whether or not farmers and breeders actually benefit from the system still remains in doubt (Lertdhamtewe, 2014a). The question then presents itself: has Thailand adopted clear, coherent, and workable rules for plant variety protection in response to the needs of the nation? This article attempts to address this question. The following section describes how the current PVP law came to be adopted in Thailand. Later sections discuss the legislative framework for plant variety protection in Thailand, and address ways in which to improve existing legal instruments governing IPR protection of farmers’ rights and plant breeding results. Implementation of TRIPS in Thailand Plant variety protection was only introduced in Thailand in the final round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). Following the conclusion of the GATT in 1994, and later, the creation of the multilateral trading system of the WTO in 1995, a minimum standard of protection of IPRs was established under the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement sets out the requirements for many forms of IPRs protection, including the protection of plant varieties. Specifically, TRIPS Article 27.3(b) states that “members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.” Therefore, as a member of the WTO, Thailand was required to establish laws and regulations to conform with the WTO/TRIPS requirements. In views of such a commitment, Thailand embarked on a major campaign to revamp the legal framework of the protection of IPRs, pursuant to which outmoded laws were to be updated to conform with the TRIPS standards. Specifically, new laws were to be enacted covering IPRs that were previously unprotected, including plant variety rights. Thus, it can be said that the motivation for Thailand to embrace the framework for plant variety protection was the country’s commitment to the WTO/TRIPS regime. The process of drafting plant variety protection legislation was an ambitious one. With a view to fulfilling its TRIPS obligations, Thailand asked government agencies, namely, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), to study the impact and implication of introducing plant variety protection in Thailand (Compeerapap, 1997). It appeared that the Thai Patent Act of 1972, which was later amended in 1992, prohibited the granting of patents over living organisms, such as plants and plant varieties. The reason for this objection can be attributable to a number of factors, including the following: (i) the country’s level of development; (ii) the country’s historical attitude toward the protection of IP rights; (iii) the perceived strategic cultural significance of staple food that goes against the creation of a private property rights regime; and (iv) the perception that a patent regime unequally enriches breeders and biotechnologists at the expense of farmers and local communities (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a). As mentioned earlier, Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS permits WTO Members to exclude plants from patentability and also to decline to protect plant varieties with the patent system, provided that they protect the results of plant breeding with a comparable system. Accordingly, Thailand has an option to enact sui generis law for the protection of plant variety rights (Kuanpoth, 2009). In 1994, the Thai government introduced two bills related to plant variety protection with similar contents. The only outstanding difference was that plant variety protection would be the competence of either the MOC or the MOAC, depending on which law was accepted. It is worth noting that the contents of these two bills were solely based on the text of the UPOV Convention. The UPOV Convention, on which the two bills were based, was established in 1961, to ensure that Members of the UPOV Convention acknowledged the achievements of breeders of new plant varieties by granting them IP protection on a set © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

143

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

of clearly defined principles (UPOV, 2009). However, the UPOV-style law authorises member states to grant very limited privileges to farmers regarding the re-use of harvested seeds, and also the exchange of seeds with neighbouring farmers (Ragavan and Mayer, 2007). Thus, these two bills emphasised the protection of the interests of commercial plant breeders (mainly transnational corporations or TNCs). In other words, it did not acknowledge the contribution of farmers and local communities to the development of commercial new plant varieties (Lianchamroon, 1998). This raised a substantial number of public debates and controversies (Janchitfah, 1998). Specifically, a number of domestic interest groups, including academics, farmers’ representatives, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) protested against the inclusion of these two bills (Kuanpoth, 2009). In order to find a compromise between the political dispute and local society, a Drafting Committee for Plant Variety Protection Bill was appointed by the government of Thailand in 1997. This Committee specifically comprised representatives from a broad spectrum of civil society, including plant breeders, farmers, academicians, NGOs and the private sectors established to redraft these two bills (Kuanpoth, 2009; Lianchamroon, 1998). A compromise was finally reached toward the implementation of Thailand’s plant protection regime. Specifically, the response of the Drafting Committee toward the adoption of a plant variety protection law in Thailand was twofold. Firstly, the Drafting Committee decided to combine the two bills into a single bill, and did not follow the plant variety protection model available under the UPOV Convention. Secondly, the new draft of the Plant Variety Protection Act significantly included provisions giving effect to the concept of farmers’ rights by allowing individual farmers and local societies to hold farmers’ rights over plant varieties. Specifically, the Thai PVP Bill was passed in 1999, and reflects the compromise made between the concerns expressed by the NGO community and the pressure from local and foreign corporations to protect IPRs on plant varieties (Kanniah, 2005). Major Concerns for the Rights of Farmers and Local Societies Thailand’s PVP Act provides the legal protection for extant varieties attempting to create “special and differential” treatment in favour of farmers and local farming societies, bringing extant varieties into three main categories: (i) local domestic plant varieties (ii) general domestic plant and (iii) wild plant varieties. Controversy Surrounding Local Domestic Plant Variety Protection The protection of local domestic plant varieties was introduced in the Thai PVP law as a means to provide exclusive monopoly rights to farmers and local communities that take care of the existing plant variety found within Thailand’s territory. Since it is an objective of the Act to balance plant breeders’ rights with the rights of farmers and local communities, the Act recognises the vital role of farmers and local indigenous communities in conserving, developing and improving plant genetic resources by allowing them to register local domestic plant varieties.4 Interestingly, there is no express mention of “rights of farmers” or “rights of local indigenous communities” in the Thai PVP Act, but the term “local domestic plant variety” is used as a way to refer to the recognition of the rights of farmers and local indigenous communities. Supporters of the Thai PVP Act describe legal protection of local domestic plant varieties as a mark of success in implementing the concept of traditional knowledge rights and rights of local indigenous communities (Kuanpoth, 2007), a concept reflected in policy framework of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),5 which states that: [C]ontracting parties should respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional knowledge lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, 144

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.6 Obviously, provisions offering protection to local domestic plant varieties also present an interesting example of considering the protection of communities’ interest, which clearly adheres to the recommendations of the TRIPS Council.7 Several developing nations in Asia tend to style provisions similarly to the text of the Thai provisions, but the characteristics of the features might be different (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a). For instances, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001 of India (PPVFR Act)8 adopted some important elements from the text of the Thai PVP provisions by allowing local farmers to register their varieties (i.e. extant varieties or farmers’ varieties) (Cullet, 1999; Cullet and Koluru, 2003; Dhar and Chaturvedi, 1998; Ragavan and Mayer, 2007; Ranjan, 2009). Other countries include Indonesia, Bhutan, Laos, and Cambodia (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a).9 At present, however, there is some uncertainty whether farmers and local communities have actually benefited from this set of generous provisions (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). While there exists a statutory framework in place for the registration of local domestic plant varieties, no farmers and local communities have so far been able to register their varieties under the Thai current plant variety protection system. It is suggested that the fundamental flaw is that their varieties generally do not meet the eligibility requirements for protection (Lertdhamtewe, 2012, 2013). Under the Act, the local domestic plant variety needs not be novel,10 but it must pass the other certain eligibility standards, namely, distinctness, uniformity, and stability, (DUS).11 Local varieties developed by farmers and local communities are usually more heterogeneous genetically and less stable and therefore they will not easily qualify the criteria of DUS in Thailand’s PVP provisions (Chiarolla, 2006). Nonetheless, the uncertainty whether farmers and local communities could not benefit from the PVP provisions is not just because their varieties do not pass the requirements of DUS. There are other fundamental problems on the registration’s requirements, namely the culture and tradition. For instance, the Thai PVP Act indicates that a plant variety capable of registration as a local domestic plant variety must be a plant variety existing only in a particular locality within Thailand.12 The statute further provides that: When a plant variety exists in a particular locality and has been conserved or developed exclusively by a particular community, that community shall have the right to submit, to the local government organisation in whose jurisdiction such community fall … 13 There is a doubt that local domestic plant varieties exist in Thailand (Lertdhamtewe and Laowonsiri 2014; Thathong, 2009). Arguably, general and wild domestic varieties occur on a larger scale, but the category for local extant varieties is meant especially for varieties that have been cultivated only in a specific part of the country by a specific group of people working together on the field. Obviously, there might be more than one community relating to plant varieties, so that no one can exactly claim the actual rights to register and benefit from the PVP provisions (Thathong, 2009). The rights to local domestic plant varieties belong to local communities or indigenous groups in Thailand, and the PVP Act defines “local community” as “a group of people residing and commonly inhering and passing over culture continually and registered under the Thai law.”14 Obviously, there is no express mention of indigenous people, but the term “local community” in the PVP Act is also used to refer to the recognition of local indigenous groups (Lertdhamtewe, 2014b). Such a community is a dynamic concept, the components of which change over time as people move from one community to another (Thathong, 2009). Thus, it is virtually impossible to derive a suitable single definition of such a versatile concept. In fact, Thailand has made statements to the United Nations, which relates to the rights of indigenous people.15 From the country’s perspective, there is no such thing as indigenous groups in © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

145

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Thailand. Instead, all Thais are considered to be indigenous people, and each indigenous group forms an integral part of the Thai nation. Based on Thailand’s declaration to the United Nations, proposing that local domestic plant varieties should belong to local Thai communities is to overlook the fact that a single community or indigenous owner of a plant variety in Thailand cannot be identified. It is not surprising that no one can be able to benefit from this set of provisions. Similar situation can be expected in any country following Thailand’s suit (Dang and Goel, 2009; Kochhar, 2010). Core Concerns about Protection of General Domestic Plant and Wild Plant Varieties Another set of provisions that provide S&D treatment in favour of farmers and local communities relates to general domestic plant and wild plant variety protection. The protection of general domestic plant and wild plant varieties encompasses everything in the public domain, including materials traditionally cultivated by farmers or over which farmers posses common knowledge. Thus, the PVP Act defines “wild plant variety” as a “plant variety, which currently exists or used to exist in the natural habitat and has not been commonly cultivated”; while “general domestic plant variety” is defined as “a plant variety originating or existing in the country and commonly exploited and shall include a plant variety which is not a new plant variety, a local domestic plant variety or a wild plant variety.”16 It is meant to emphasis common knowledge and strengthen traditional knowledge rights (prior art) protection. This clearly adheres to the principles of the CBD with respect to traditional knowledge protection.17 Currently, however, there is much debate as to the adequacy of these provisions in protecting the knowledge of farmers and local communities and its adequacy remains a matter of opinion. Supporters of Thailand’s PVP Act argue that provisions providing the protection for general domestic plant and wild plant varieties reflect a keen sense of consideration to capture all plant varieties within sovereign domain (Robinson, 2007). Critics, however, object that the adequacy of such protection is open to challenge, considering that such varieties are often subject to broad distribution or belong to the public domain: it may thus be difficult to distribute profits to local custodians (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). Whether the legal protection for general domestic plant and wild plant varieties provided by the Thai PVP Act meets the needs of farmers and local communities remains questionable. Considering the provisions in the Thai PVP law, one can argue that the statute does not require general domestic plant and wild plant varieties to be registered, thus leaving all existing plants actually unprotected (see Box 1). As a result, it enables materials traditionally cultivated by farmers or over which farmers posses common knowledge to be illegitimately appropriated (Blakeney, 2005; Robinson and Kuanpoth, 2009; Woods, 2002). The patenting of the medicinal extract plant from Plao Noi in 1983 by a Japanese corporation provides a good example (Thathong, 2009). A more recent example is the patenting of the so-called Kwao Krua variety by the United States in 2002 (US Patent Number 6,673,377; and Robinson, 2010). Both of these varieties are common in Thailand, having been cultivated for a long time in many geographical areas of Thailand. It has been suggested that a major cause of the illegitimate appropriation of plant genetic resources is that relevant offices (patent offices) are often unaware of the existence of such resources in the field for which they are granting protection (Robinson and Kuanpoth, 2009). Disputes concerning Permit Licence for the Use of Extant Varieties The Thai PVP Act essentially details access and benefit-sharing rules for general domestic plant and wild plant varieties (see Box 1 above). A range of stipulations needs to be made with regard to IPRs, including the intention of those seeking access. Currently, the law requires permission to be granted by government officials for collection, use, development, and research for commercial interest. In other words, the permit licence is required when activities are conducted for commercial interests. A question can be raised as to 146

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Box 1. Chapter V—Protection of General Domestic and Wild Plant Varieties. Section 52. A person who collects, procures, or gathers general domestic plant varieties, wild plant varieties or any part of such plant varieties for the purposes of variety development, education, experiment or research for commercial interest shall obtain permission from the competent official and make a profit-sharing agreement under which income accruing there from shall be remitted to the Plant Varieties Protection Fund in accordance with the rules, procedure and conditions prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation. The profit-sharing agreement shall at least have the following particulars: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

the purpose of the collection and gathering of the plant variety; the amount or quantity of samples of the intended plant variety; the obligations of the person to whom permission is granted; the stipulation as to intellectual property rights in the products which result from the development, study, experiment or research of or into the plant variety and which are derived from the use of the plant variety under the agreement; the stipulation as to the amount or rate of, or the term for, the profit-sharing under the profit-sharing agreement in respect of products derived from the use of the plant variety thereunder; the term of the agreement; the revocation of the agreement; the stipulation as to the dispute settlement procedure; other items of particular as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation.

Sources: Plant Variety Protection Act of Thailand 1999.

the type of such requirements. The statute provides the same level treatment to users of general domestic plant and wild plant varieties with widely different levels of income status, including those subsistence farmers who selling extant varieties for their survival rather than profits. The absence of exemption to licence seems to create regulatory ambiguity. More importantly, non-compliance with this procedural rule could lead to severe punishments. The PVP law tries to deter infringements by providing stringent penalties, at THB 400,000 (that’s about US$14,000) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.18 In a country like Thailand where literary among the farming community is limited, it can result in farmers forfeiting more commitments than they intended to. Unfortunately, the forfeiting rights are important to allow farmers and farming communities to continue their livings and to maintain agrobiodiversity conservation and innovation at local levels. The case of Surat Maneenoprattanasuda, a vendor CDs,19 demonstrates this point (Bangkok Post, 2010). While the case is not directly relevant to plant variety protection issues, it provides a good analogy. In 2010, Surat Maneenoprattanasuda was found guilty of selling copyrighted VCDs without a licence under the Motion Pictures and Video Act B.E.2551 (AD2009) of Thailand,20 and was fined 133,400 bath (about US$4,250) by the Thai Criminal Court. The court reasoned that he had a duty to obtain a licence to sell CDs, and non-compliance may lead to severe punishment. What is wrong with this case is that, in a country like Thailand where the level of literacy among poorer people is limited, a certain level of innocent infringement is only to be expected. In such circumstances, the imposition of a duty to obtain a permit licence on all people, including those living below subsistence level, as outlined in Surat Maneenoprattanasuda’s case, would create a huge burden on society considering the lack of sophistication among poorer people. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

147

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Problems with Benefits arising from a Plant Variety Protection Fund Furthermore, the Thai PVP Act establishes a Plant Variety Protection Fund (PVP Fund), which accrues income from the profit-sharing agreements, collection, use, research, or commercialization of general domestic plant or wild plant varieties, registration fees, and other sources. The PVP Fund is intended to be used to assist the conservation and development of domestic and wild relatives of plant varieties by local farming societies. The underlying policy objective is that any efforts that result in a new variety should be used to encourage genetic diversity. Thus, the statute promotes innovation while at the same time rewarding the farmers and protecting biodiversity. While the objective of the Act is commendable, local farmers were often sceptical of the prospects of benefit arising through the PVP Fund (Robinson, 2008). A recent study also shown that the rewards through the PVP Fund are actually disconnected from the farmer (Robinson, 2008). Moreover, the dearth of regional offices among the local communities in Thailand could also pose procedural and technical complications for farmers, requiring them to apply to remote offices. Consequently, it is arguable that local farming communities are generally left uncompensated. Problems Relating to Plant Breeders’ Rights Protection Chapter III of the Thai PVP Act, entitled “Protection of New Plant Varieties,” provides a comprehensive set of provisions that attempt to protect the rights of plant breeders. While the Thai PVP law deviates from certain aspects of UPOV, the fact remains that many provisions for breeders’ rights in Thailand’s PVP law are taken from the UPOV system. The current issues concerning the protection of plant breeders’ rights in the Thai PVP law are critically analysed in four parts: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Eligibility Standard for Protection Duration of Protection Scope of Breeders’ Rights and Its Exceptions Compulsory Licensing provision

Low Eligibility Standards for Protection Thailand’s PVP Act assigns breeders’ rights over new, distinct, uniform, and stable varieties. Each of the eligibility requirements are based on the same standard as that of UPOV, but have a lower requirements for protection (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a, 2013b). As will be discussed in more detail below, the lower standards for protection can result in encouraging misappropriation of plant genetic resources in the public domain and protecting it as an invention. According to the Thai PVP Act, the novelty standard is defined in terms of commercially novelty. That is, prior to sale the application material is the standard for determining novelty.21 No other conditions are required, since neither the equivalent of inventive step nor the industrial application is applied. Accordingly, no specific degree of human intervention is necessary in order to qualify for protection. As a result, plant varieties, including commonly known varieties and plants growing in the wild may be eligible for protection as new, provided that they have not been sold or otherwise distributed of for more than one year. This holds true in case of “Prik” or “Chilli,” which is commonly well-known herb in Thailand (Ratanasatien, unknown). Because of its plentiful availability, Prik is rarely sold but it is commonly found in the most backyards. Under the Thai PVP Act however, Prik can be deemed as “new,” provided that it has not been previously sold or discovered, and the species is still not classified. Thus, the important aspect to note is that the novelty standard under the Thai law may not be excluded commonly well known plants that are commonly found in Thailand. Instead of stimulating innovative plant breeding activities, the low novelty standard, set by the Thai PVP Act, results in commonly well-known plants, like Prik, passing the novelty requirements. A plant variety fulfilling the novelty requirements must also be distinctive to become eligible for protection. 148

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Distinctiveness is determined by distinguishing the application material from other existing plant varieties that is related to the cultivation, consumption, pharmacy, production or transformation.22 The crucial aspect to note is that distinguishing the application material from other existing plant varieties is inconsequential for a finding of distinctness. This is because application materials have to be compared with other existing varieties in order to pass the distinctiveness test. Thus, the application material can pass the requirement of distinctiveness under the Act, so long as they are distinguishable from any other registered variety. In other words, the application materials can still qualify as “distinct” even if they are indistinguishable from commonly well-known varieties that are not officially registered under the Thai law. And again, Prik can be used as an example, which has been granted protection because no application for protection has been successfully made in Thailand. When read alongside the low standard of novelty, a commonly well-known variety can be novel and distinct under the Thai PVP Act, provided that it has not been sold or disposal of for more than one year and is distinguishable from other registered plant varieties. This seems to argue that Thailand’s plant protection regime promotes non-innovation to the level of an invention by using a combination of low distinctiveness requirement and the diluted standards of novelty. Some comparative comments are appropriate here. While the eligibility requirements for new plant variety protection are undergoing problems in Thailand, such requirements for protection are well written in several countries, notably country members of the UPOV. For instance, the United States’ Plant Variety Protection Act 1970 (US PVP)23 defines “distinctiveness” as: [d]istinct in the sense that the variety is clearly distinguishable from any other variety the existence of which is publicly known or a matter of common knowledge at the time of the filing the application … 24 Distinguishing the application material from any other variety whose existence is publicly known or a matter of common knowledge determines distinctiveness. Common knowledge is an essential impediment to qualifying as distinct in the US law, since it may be established from commonly cultivated materials or from publication of the variety. Plants that are commonly cultivated and well-known varieties will therefore not fall within the statutory definition of distinctiveness under the US law, being indistinguishable from any other known variety as a matter of common knowledge (Janis and Kesan, 2002; Nelson, 2005). Failure to legislate in similar fashion to UPOV in Thailand has resulted in rampant erosion of genetic materials in the public domain through its protection as an invention. A new plant variety that is novel and distinct must also be “uniform” and “stable” in order for breeders to receive intellectual property protection under the Thai PVP Act.25 Generally speaking, a plant variety should be the same or very similar with the certain degree of similarity depending on the nature of the propagating method.26 Stability is achieved if plants remain unchanged during the successive production or propagation.27 Arguably, the uniformity and stability standards are not hard to meet because breeders can generally be crafted to accommodate the peculiar needs of plant breeding. Such version of eligibility standards have resulted Thailand in rampant erosion of genetic material in the public domain and protect it as an invention. Again, the planting of Prik serves as an outstanding example. Overall, breeders of new plant varieties can be eligible for protection if their varieties fulfil four distinct criteria: novelty, distinct, uniform, and stable. The low eligibility standards that Thailand’s PVP Act creates as a whole can result in encouraging the appropriation of plant genetic materials and protecting it as a premium invention. Thus, if the Thai PVP Act was to create a sui generis regime for stimulating innovative plant breeding activities, the criteria for protectability have to be more clearly defined. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

149

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Short Term of Protection The duration of protection under the Thai PVP Act also questions the sufficiency of the Thai law to support the rights of breeders because it seems to be too narrow. Under the Thai PVP law, tree varieties have a specific term of 27 years, while other plant varieties have a term of 12 or 17 years, depending on the type of plant varieties.28 Obviously, the duration of protection in the Thai PVP law is shorter than that of UPOV, which offers a minimum 20-year term of protection. Many countries, such as India, Malaysia, and Laos, seem to favour this approach, and thus, offer a shorter term of protection for new plant varieties compared to UPOV (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a). The reason for this may be to ensure that the IP system does not contribute to creating a monopoly over food produced (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a, 2013b). However, such a term of protection would appear to create potential problems, because a sui generis system for plant variety protection that provides less protection may give little incentive for further research and development in this field (Lertdhamtewe, 2012, 2013b). The question this situation raises is: does the protection term under the Thai law provide adequate term of protection for breeders to secure the maintenance of the enormous and costly breeding work? Breeding a new commercially plant varieties is actually a very laborious and time-consuming process (Dutfield and Suthersanen, 2008). It takes about 7–10 years to get from the first cross to the marketable variety, and costs approximately THB10 to 20 millions (roughly US$350,000 to 650,000) (Arunmas, 2009). But the duration of protection terminates just after 12 or 17 years, which might be considered to be too short for breeders to secure the maintenance of their enormous and costly breeding practices. Unsurprisingly, the short term of protection produces a chilling effect on the incentive to invest in new plant varieties in Thailand. By registration figures, the number of applications for new plant variety protection stood at 525, and the total number of plant variety rights in force at the end of 2012 just amounted to 101 (see Table 1). The number of plant variety rights in force can be considered to be too small given that the PVP Act has been in force for more than decades. Critics often pointed out that there are more than a thousand potential plants for registrations when considering the biological materials in Thailand (Lertdhamtewe, 2012). The only impressive term for protection in the Thai PVP law is the sub-categorization of protection term to be applied to trees. This additional duration of protection offers to trees because these types of plant varieties typically do not become obsolete in the sense that a new and better tree being bred is a relatively rare occurrence (Masarek, 2010). But, even here, there has been no thorough economic analysis to determine an optimum duration of protection and it still remains to be seen whether such longer period of protection will create an unnecessary burden on society or provide unreasonably large profits for the holders of such plant varieties (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). Table 1: Plant Varieties Registered in Thailand

Type of Crop Varieties Field Crops Fruit Crops Vegetables Ornamentals Trees Total

Numbers of Crops with Registered Plant Varieties

Type of Registrants

Numbers of Registration

28 13 31 16 13 101

Local plant breeders and farmers The Thai government Academic and research institution Transnational seed corporations – Total

13 17 1 70 – 101

Source: Plant Variety Protection Division, Report on Plant Varieties (Bangkok, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand 2012).

150

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Overall, the short term of protection can be viewed as reducing the incentive to invest in new plant varieties, and further diluting the benefits of Thailand’s PVP law. Debates over Scope of Breeders’ Rights While the Thai PVP Act grants exclusive monopoly rights to plant breeders,29 these exclusive rights are subject to certain exceptions, including the following: 1. An act related to a protected new plant variety without the intention of using it as propagating material; 2. Education, study, experiment or research related to a protected new plant variety for the purpose of breeding or developing plant varieties; 3. An act related to a protected new plant variety committed in good faith; 4. The cultivation or propagation by a farmer of a protected new plant variety from the propagating material made by the farmer, provided that, in a case where the Minister, with the approval of the Commission, publishes that new plant variety, its cultivation or propagation by farmers may be made in a quantity not exceeding three times the quantity obtained; 5. An act related to a protected new plant variety committed for non-commercial ends; and 6. The sale or distribution by any means, importation or exportation, or possession for the purpose of any of the aforesaid activities, of the propagating material of the protected new plant variety which has been distributed by the right holder or with the right holder’s consent.30 Two important issues arise with reference to exceptions to breeders’ exclusive rights. The first relates to breeders’ permission to use their protected varieties. The second relates to the experimental exemption or research exception. Both issues are not fully addressed in the Thai PVP Act. Based on the Thai PVP provision, no authorization from breeders of new protected plant varieties is required in the case that the protected variety is sought for plant breeding or any other activities. The crucial question might be that does the use of protected variety as an initial source of information to create new varieties and to commercialise the production of newly developed varieties constitute any infringement. Apparently, the language of the Thai PVP law does not define the scope of actions. For a large part, there is no legislative history that would help in defining the exact meaning of the scope of these actions. Furthermore, the clause of experimental exemption in the Thai PVP Act is also not clearly defined, nor does the statute indicate who holds ownership rights over new variety resulting from the protected variety. Imagine one farmer uses the personal experimental allowance under the Thai PVP law to derive Plant Y, whether or not it is clearly distinguishable from the protected variety, say Plant X. Then, farmer derives Plant Z from Plant Y. Even if Plant Z is clearly distinguishable from Plant Y, a question arise as to who will receive legal rights over Plant Y and Plant Z (whether the farmer or breeder of the initial variety?). In such circumstances, the lack of clarity of the statute seems to create potential disputes between breeders and other actors. From the standpoint of a country concerned with exploiting new varieties for the purpose of stimulating innovation in plant breeding, little is gained from defining the scope of plant breeders’ rights and the extent of its limitations. In order to be effective system for plant breeders’ rights protection, this provision should be reconsidered. The only meaningful exception to breeders’ rights in the Thai PVP law is farmers’ save seed exemption. Such exemption not only represents deviation from UPOV, but also highlights the fact that the rights have been contoured to suit Thailand’s unique national conditions (Lertdhamtewe, 2014a). Thailand’s PVP law recognises farmers’ traditional rights to save and re-use seeds from their harvests by incorporating the concept of farmers’ rights (as expressed in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture).31 Farmers’ traditional right is commonly referred to as “farmers privilege” or “farmers-saved seed” exemption. Thus, this exemption in the Thai PVP law permits farmers © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

151

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

to retain seeds from crops grown in subsequent seasons to produce subsequent crops. Farmers’ right to save seeds is extremely important to a country like Thailand, where agriculture is done by small-scale farmers. Countries with similar socio-economic backgrounds, like Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Bhutan, Malaysia, Laos and Cambodia, have also included some kinds of farmers’ rights exemptions in their PVP laws (Lertdhamtewe, 2013a). Thus, such exception is to be commended. Problems Concerning Compulsory Licensing Provision Out of concern related to the fear of creating monopolization of food brought about by the IPR regime, Thailand’s PVP Act contains a specific provision that provides another exception to the rights of plant breeders. This provision is often referred to as “compulsory licensing.” Interestingly, the compulsory licensing provision in Thailand’s plant protection regime allows other persons (competitors of the holders) to compete with the rights holder.32 The Director-General of the Department of Agriculture has the power to authorise a third party to use such protected variety without the authorization of plant breeders.33 Similar to the research exception, the compulsory licensing provision in the Thai PVP Act is unclear, which can lead to the misuse of the compulsory licensing provision (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). The fundamental problem in the compulsory licensing is that there is no time limit imposed on the duration of licence use. Apparently, there is no provision in the Thai PVP Act that would lead to the termination of the compulsory licence if the circumstance that led to its issuance ceases to exist. Unlike the current PVP Act, the Patent Act B.E.2542 (AD1999) of Thailand provides a set of rules that regulates when the government of Thailand may compel patent holders to licence their products to other parties, and provides a variety of conditions to be included in the compulsory licence, thereby incorporating the principles of compulsory licensing under TRIPS Article 31.34 Problems with Institutional Governance in Thailand Does Thailand have adequate institutional body to oversee plant protection issues? As the institutional apparatus, the Plant Variety Protection Commission (PVP Commission) and the Plant Variety Protection Division (PVP Division) were established under the Thai PVP Act. The Thai Plant Variety Protection Commission The PVP Commission is a major organizational body governing the area of plant variety protection. Generally, the PVP Commission is established with a mandate to handle issues relating to plant variety protection. Its mandates include the following authorities and duties: 1. To submit recommendations to the Minister on the issuance of Ministerial Regulations and Notifications under this Act; 2. To consider and decide appeals against orders of the Director-General relating to registration of new plant variety protection; 3. To give opinions or advice to the Minister with regard to the execution of this Act; 4. To prescribe regulations with regard to the studies, experimentation, research, breeding or development of or into plant varieties from local domestic plant varieties, general domestic plant varieties and wild plant varieties or any part thereof; 5. To prescribe regulations with regard to the management of the Plant Variety Protection Fund; 6. To lay downs rules and procedures for giving special remuneration to State employees or officials who have bred new plant varieties for the agencies to which they are attached; 7. To determine agencies or institutions to be authorised to examine and appraise biological and environmental safety impacts; and 8. To perform such other acts as prescribed by law to be under the responsibility of the Commission.35 152

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

In this area, the current PVP Commission’s authorities mainly focus on the enforcement of law under the Thai PVP Act. Does the Thai PVP Commission have an adequate organizational structure and mandate to oversee plant IP protection issues? Obviously, there is a question as to the sufficiency of the current organizational body to address the plant variety protection issues because the mandate of the Thai PVP Commission is limited in scope and its functions to assist the Thai farmers and domestic interested groups also have been rather limited in scope as the focus is on the law enforcement (Lertdhamtewe, 2013b). There are other essential issues that need to be addressed, that is policy implementation of provisions relating to extant varieties as a means to promote the rights of farmers and local farming communities, increased participation of farmers and local breeders in agricultural research and innovation, as well as regulatory monitoring the compliance of policies, and its cooperation with other government agencies, but the current Thai PVP Commission does not have the mandate to address these essential issues. The scope of the PVP Commission’s role and obligations should thus be expanded to incorporate those important functions. The Plant Variety Protection Division The Thai PVP Division is currently organised under the Thai PVP Act. Specifically, the Thai PVP Division is established under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture in the MOAC with a mandate to assist the PVP Commission as staffs, and to handle issues concerning IPRs in agriculture. Its mandates is to oversee administrative matters and related issues, such as registration of new plant varieties, examination of plant variety rights application, and enforcement of law under the Thai PVP Act. Current assistance of the Thai PVP Division to local farmers and breeders focuses on capacity building. In this sense, the PVP Division offers assistance through a series of training and technical cooperation programmes. Assistance include providing regular training session on technical advices, such as developing new plant varieties, registration of new plant varieties, and the benefits of Thailand’s PVP Act, organising technical cooperation activities annually, including seminars and workshops in various regional areas and provinces in Thailand, and offering legal assistance to local farmers’ groups and representatives. These capacity-building activities are undoubtedly helpful to local farmers and breeders, but the scope of assistance is rather limited as the focus is on technical capacity building. The PVP Division should also address other essential areas concerning plant IP protection, such as technology transfer, financial mechanisms, and debt relief. Thus, the ineffective way in which plant IP protection issues is addressed is due primarily to institutional problems with the Thai PVP Division. The institutional problems of the Thai PVP Division can be attributed to several issues, including (1) the lack of due organizational status and (2) the insufficient institutional attention. Need for Rules Modifications The previous sections have shown that the implementation of Thailand’s PVP Act presents concrete examples of instances where the national implementation of the WTO/TRIPS Agreement has proven to be problematic, because of their disconnection with domestic realities both in terms of research and farming. To address issues more effectively and consistently, consideration should be given to the establishment of a coherent set of legal rules in the form of a new legal framework and to suspend the current legal rule of Thailand’s plant protection. However, it is worth mentioning at this point that this article does not intend to suggest an exhaustive list of provisions to be added in the proposal for Thailand’s new plant variety protection framework. The scope and contents of the new plant variety protection framework of Thailand needs to be further discussed. Thus, the remainder of this article concludes with a brief account of what basis elements should be included in the Thai new plant variety protection framework. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

153

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Adjustment of Rules Regarding the Rights of Farmers and Local Societies Elements of the new PVP framework may include the suspension of the local domestic plant variety protection provision for a number of reasons. As discussed above, since its inception, the lack of local domestic plant variety registrations has proved that Thailand has no such plant varieties. Also, proposing that local domestic plant varieties should belong to local Thai communities overlooks the fact that a single community owner of a plant variety in Thailand cannot be identified. Thus, the set of provisions for local domestic plant variety protection might need to be suspended in the new PVP regime. Furthermore, there is an obvious need to establish a registration system and database for Thailand’s existing general domestic plant and wild plant varieties, since the creation of such a database may serve to mitigate the problem of misappropriation. By recording all plant varieties in Thailand on a single database, patent office anywhere in the world could easily conduct searches to determine whether the plant-related invention to be protected was or was not derived from existing plant varieties in Thailand. Also, the types of permit or licence for the use of existing general domestic plant and wild plant varieties should be modified. Obviously, subsistence farmers should be exempted from the licence considering the poverty levels of Thailand’s farming communities. Individual’s income status could be considered. Normally, the government of Thailand uses individuals’ income levels to categorise them into different income groups. Therefore, this economic indicator can be used as a primary determinant for the status of users of existing varieties. Methods for diverse special and distinctive treatment of different levels of users/farmers should be sought, and licence exemption should be provided to subsistence farmers/users of existing varieties who sell them for survival rather than profit in accordance with their individual levels of income. Moreover, the benefit-sharing of rewards from the PVP Fund in Thailand’s PVP Act should also be addressed. Some commentators have expressed that the benefit-sharing of rewards via PVP Fund is disconnected from the farmers. Critics assert that farmers may not be vigilant in applying for benefits considering the social, economic and educational conditions of Thailand’s local farming communities. Also, the dearth of regional offices among the local communities in Thailand could pose procedural complication for farmers, requiring them to apply to remote offices. Thus, a practical solution is to authorise NGOs or local government bodies to apply for benefit-sharing rewards on farmers’ behalf. Further regulations or rules could be developed to assist this matter. Modifications to Rules concerning Plant Breeders’ Rights Another area that needs to be addressed relates to a set of provisions specifying the protection of plant breeders’ rights. The inadequacy of Thailand’s PVP provisions concerning the eligibility standards for new plant variety protection is, in part, the result of Thailand’s reluctance to adopt the provisions of the 1991 UPOV Convention concerning the protection of breeders’ rights. To date, there tends to be commonalities in the drafting of UPOV-based legislations (Dutfield and Suthersanen, 2008; Lertdhamtewe, 2013b; Robinson, 2007). While specific content of certain provisions of UPOV is highly controversial, the protection of plant breeders’ rights and state’s obligation to protect such rights receive broad recognition in contemporary international society (Dutfield and Suthersanen, 2008) Thus, setting new eligibility standards for protection may increase clarity, and one possible way to do this would be to redraft the eligibility standards for new plant variety protection in the Thai PVP Act to align them with those in the UPOV treaty. Moreover, the provision related to the term of protection in the Thai PVP Act should be amended and in this respect the term of protection provided by the UPOV Convention could be considered. The UPOV Convention uses a fixed period of no shorter than 20 years. Methods to differentiate the term of protection for different types of plant varieties should still be sought, and the sub-categorization of protection terms, such as the one provided by the UPOV Convention, could be adopted for such differentiation. This 154

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

provision of UPOV could be used as a basis for providing the period of plant breeders’ rights protection in the revised Thai PVP regime. In addition, the scope of plant breeders’ rights and the clause of exceptions in the Thai PVP law should also be reconsidered, since these elements are not clearly defined in the Thai PVP law. Thus, Thailand should provide other patterns of plant breeders’ rights, and determine the extent of limitations on breeders’ rights with a clear explanation. This could mean that the new PVP regime would promote research on protected varieties by allowing the use of a registered variety to conduct experimental research or as an initial source of variety for the purpose of creating other varieties. The new PVP statute may also require authorization from the owner of the plant variety to derive the second-generation variety. This authorization would only be required where the repeated use of such a variety as a developed variety. In addition to the research exception, farmers’ saved seed exemption should still be sought in the Thai PVP law. Furthermore, the compulsory licensing exception in Thailand’s plant protection regime is also unclear, which may lead to the misuse of the compulsory licensing provision. Thus, regulations or rules of the new PVP framework could be developed to provide guidance for the scope of compulsory licensing exception and determine the duration and termination of the use of compulsory licensing. The compulsory licensing provision in the Thai Patent Law, which incorporates the principles of compulsory licensing exception in TRIPS Article 31, could be adopted in response to this issue. Thus, the new PVP framework should be styled similar to the provisions of the Thai Patent Act. By introducing such a clause of compulsory licensing, the new PVP law could remove the most crippling impediment to introducing extensive compulsory licensing provisions, thereby representing a balance between fully allowing public interest exception and taking a position that tends to preventing breeders’ security altogether. Case for Institutional Apparatus The statutory reform of Thailand’s plant protection regime also means that an institutional body with an appropriate mandate might be necessary to govern issues relating to plant variety protection. In terms of the institutional apparatus governing the area of plant variety protection in Thailand, the mandate of the Thai PVP Commission is extremely limited and the PVP Division’s activities and authority to assist the PVP Commission are also rather limited in scope. The problem of ineffectiveness and insufficiency could be resolved by expanding the role of the PVP Commission and elevating the existing PVP Division to full Department status, thus strengthening the organizational apparatus in Thailand. Expanding the role of the PVP Commission could incorporate important functions that the current PVP Commission is not mandated to serve. Such functions could include building a better institutional body to deal with plant variety protection issues. They could also include a wider mandate to implement all necessary measures to promote the IPRs protection of plant varieties, as well as the participation of farmers and local interest groups. With respect to the suggested organizational reform of the PVP Division, the need for such an elevation can be explained by comparing it with the treatment of other IP rights, such as copyrights, trademarks, patents, and geographical indications, promoted by the government of Thailand (Lertdhamtewe, 2014c). While plant variety protection issues arguably concern the majority of Thai citizens, they have not received much attention. Nonetheless, the importance of foregoing IP rights has been emphasised, and the full status of a whole Department, not only a small Division, as well as a set of separate procedures and working staffs, have been established to address such IP right issues in Thailand.36 Plant variety protection issues concern a vast number of the Thai working population, and there is a consensus in Thailand that they should be addressed as a priority at the present time. If these issues, which concern the majority of the Thai population, are considered to be as important as other IP rights, it is only fair that they should be accorded the same institutional attention and weight by elevating © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

155

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

the present working Division to full Departmental status. This proposed institutional reform would help to alleviate the doubt that plant variety protection issues have been ignored and not given their rightful attention. About the Author Pawarit Lertdhamtewe, Director of LL.M. Programme at Bangkok University, Thailand; and Director of the Law and Development Institute, LERTDHAM Foundation, Thailand; e-mail: p.lertdhamtewe@gmail. com. Annex I Registration Costs Types of Registration An Application for Registration of a New Plant Variety An Application for an Objection to an Application for Registration of a New Plant Variety A Certificate of Registration of a New Plant Variety Annual Fee for the Protection of a New Plant Variety An Application for Registration of Authorization of the Use of Rights under a Certificate of Registration of a New Plant Variety An Application for Registration of the Assignment of Rights under a Certificate of Registration of a New Plant Variety Substitute Certificate of Registration of a New Plant Variety

Rate of Fees 1,000 Baht each (roughly 30USD) 1,000 Baht each (roughly 30USD) 1,000 Baht each (roughly 30USD) 1,000 Baht per annum (roughly 30USD) 500 Baht each (roughly 15USD)

500 Baht each (roughly 15USD)

500 Baht each (roughly 15USD)

Source: Plant Variety Protection Act of Thailand.

Notes This article is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of London. The author would like to thank Professors Uma Suthersanen and Graham Dutfield for their unfailing support and encouragement. The author also thanks Dr Tanit Changtavorn for taking the time to discuss various point of this thesis, and Sun Thathong, for providing useful information regarding Thailand’s local indigenous groups. Special thanks are also extended to the two examiners Professor Philippe Cullet and Dr Dwijen Rangnekar, for their constructive comments. This article is based on the law and materials available as on 31st December 2013. 1. The Plant Variety Protection Act B.E.2542 (AD1999) (Thailand) (“PVP Act of Thailand”). 2. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 229 (entered into force 1 January 1995) annex 1C (“TRIPS Agreement”). 3. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of plants, 33 UST 2703, 815 UNTS 109 (1961); revised by 33 UST 2703 (1978); revised by 815 UNTS 89 (1991) (“UPOV Convention”). 4. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 3. 156

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

5. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature 5 June 1992, 31 UNTS 818 (entered into force 29 December 1993) (“CBD”). 6. Ibid, art. 8(j). 7. Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b), IP/C/W/369, 8 August 2002, 13. 8. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (2001) (India). 9. Law of Republic of Indonesia No. 29 of 2000 on Plant Variety Protection (2000) (Indonesia); The Biodiversity Act of Bhutan, Water Sheep Year 2003 (2003) (Bhutan); Intellectual Property Laws (2008) (Lao People’s Democratic Republic); and Seed Management and Rights Holders of Seed Production (2008) (Cambodia). 10. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 43(2). 11. Ibid, § 11. 12. Ibid, § 43(1). 13. Ibid, § 45 para. 1 [emphasis added]. 14. Ibid, § 3. 15. Thailand Government Statement: Hill-Tribe Welfare and Development, UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.2/1992/4 (1992). 16. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 3. 17. CBD, above n 5, art. 15. 18. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 66. 19. Surat Maneenoprattanasuda and non-compliance of the Motion Pictures and Video Act B.E.2551 [2010] Thailand, Criminal Court. 20. The Motion Pictures and Video Act B.E.2551 (2009) (Thailand). 21. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, §§ 11 and 12. 22. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 12. 23. Plant Variety Protection Act 1970 (USC). 24. Ibid, § 2402(a) (2) [emphasis in original]. 25. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 11. 26. Ibid, § 11(1). 27. Ibid, § 11(2). 28. Ibid, § 31. 29. Ibid, § 33 para. 1. 30. Ibid, § 33 para. 2. 31. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome 3 November 2001, Doc. Y3159/E. 32. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 37 para. 1. 33. Ibid, § 37 para. 2. 34. The Patent Act B.E.2542 (1999) (Thailand). 35. The PVP Act of Thailand, above n 1, § 6. 36. For instance, see, Pawarit Lertdhamtewe, “The Protection of Geographical Indications in Thailand” (2014) 17(3) Journal of World Intellectual Property, 114–128. See the organizational apparatus of the Department of Intellectual Property, Thailand, available at and the structure of the PVP Division at .

References Arunmas, P. (2009) ‘Seed Firms Push for Protection’, Bangkok Post, (Thailand), 4 September 2009. Bangkok Post. ‘Police, Pirate Tapes, Poverty and Polices: A Sad Tale’, Bangkok Post, (26 August 2010). © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

157

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Blakeney, B. (2005) ‘Bioprospecting and Biopiracy’, in B. Ong (ed.), Intellectual Property and Biological Resources. Marshall-Cavendish, Singapore, p. 393. Chiarolla, C. (2006) ‘Commodifying Agricultural Biodiversity and Development-Related Issues’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 9(1), 25. Compeerapap, J. (1997) ‘The Thai Debate on Biotechnology and Regulations’, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 32, 1315. Cullet, P. (1999) ‘Revision of the TRIPS Agreement concerning the Protection of Plant Varieties: Lesson from India Concerning the Development of a Sui Generis System’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2(4), 617. Cullet, P. and Koluru, R. (2003) ‘Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights: Towards a Broader Understanding’, Delhi Law Review, 24, 41. Dang, R. and Goel, C. (2009) ‘Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection: The Indian Perspective’, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 1(4), 303. Dhar, B. and Chaturvedi, S. (1998) ‘Introducing Plant Breeders’ Rights in India—A Critical Evaluation of the Proposed Legislation’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 1(2), 245. Dutfield, G. and Suthersanen, U. (2008) Global Intellectual Property Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Janchitfah, S. (1998) Patenting Mother Nature provokes outrage Bangkok Post (Thailand). Janis, M. and Kesan, J. (2002) ‘U.S. Plant Variety Protection: Sound and Fury…?’ Houston Law Review, 39, 727–78. Kanniah, R. (2005) ‘Plant Variety Protection in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8(3), 283. Kochhar, S. (2010) ‘How Effective is Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15, 273. Kuanpoth, J. (2007) ‘TRIPS-Plus Rules under Free Trade Agreements: An Asian Perspective’, in C. Heath and A.K. Sanders (eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p. 27. Kuanpoth, J. (2009) ‘Protection of Traditional Knowledge in the Face of Globalisation: Balancing Mechanism between CBD and TRIPS’, Thailand Journal of Law and Policy, 12(1), [online]. Available at Lertdhamtewe, P. (2012) ‘Thailand’s Plant Protection Regime: A Case Study in Implementing TRIPS’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 7(3), 186–93. Lertdhamtewe, P. (2013a) ‘Asian Approaches to International Law: Focusing on Plant Protection Issues’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 8(5), 388–98. Lertdhamtewe, P. (2013b) ‘Plant Variety Protection in Thailand: the Need for a New Coherent Framework’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 8(1), 33–42. Lertdhamtewe, P. (2014a) Thailand’s sui generis system for plant variety protection. QUNO Briefing notes on developing countries sui generis options, Geneva. Lertdhamtewe, P. (2014b) ‘Recent Developments in Thailand’s Plant Variety Protection Law’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 9(9), 388–98. Lertdhamtewe, P. (2014c) ‘The Protection of Geographical Indications in Thailand’, Journal of World Intellectual Property 17(3), 114–28. Lertdhamtewe, P. and Laowonsiri, A. (2014) ASEAN Economic Community and Its Implications for Thailand’s Legal Development, Winyuchon, Bangkok (in Thai). Lianchamroon, W. (1998) ‘Community Rights and Farmers’ Rights in Thailand’, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 36, 9. Masarek, A. (2010) ‘Treetop View of the Cathedral: Plant Variety Protection in South and Southeast Asian LeastDeveloped Countries’, Emory International Law Review, 24, 433–67. Mechlem, K. (2010) ‘Agricultural Biotechnologies, Transgenic Crops and the Poor: Opportunities and Challenges’, Human Rights Law Review, 10(4), 749–64. 158

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

Protection of Plant Varieties in Thailand

Pawarit Lertdhamtewe

Nelson, A. (2005) ‘Is There an International Solution to Intellectual Property Protection for Plants?’ George Washington International Law Review, 37, 997–1029. Ragavan, S. (2007) ‘To Sow or Not to Sow: Dilemmas in Creating New Rights in Food’, in J. Kesan (ed.), Agricultural Biotechnology and Intellectual Property: Seeds of Change. CAB International, Oxfordshire, pp. 318–44. Ragavan, S. and Mayer, J. (2007) ‘Has India Addressed Its Farmers’ Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 20, 97–127. Ranjan, P. (2009) ‘Recent Developments in India’s Plant Variety Protection, Seed Regulation and Linkage with UPOV’s Proposed Membership’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12(3), pp. 219–43. Ratanasatien, C. (unknown) Current situation of PVP legislation in Thailand. Plant Varieties Protection Division, Department of Agriculture, Thailand. Robinson, D. (2007) Exploring Components and Elements of Sui Generis Systems for Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Knowledge in Asia. ICTSD Programme on IPRs and Sustainable Development, March. Robinson, D. (2008) ‘Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection Systems: Liability Rules and Non-UPOV Systems of Protection’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 3(10), 659. Robinson, D. (2010) Confronting Biopiracy: Challenges, Cases and International Debates, Earthscan, London. Robinson, D. and Kuanpoth, J. (2009) ‘The Traditional Medicines Predicament: A Case Study of Thailand’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 11(5), 375. Thathong, S. (2009) ‘Rethinking Strategies in Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge—A Case Study of Thailand’, Journal of the Thai Justice System, 2(2), 97. UPOV (2009) International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants: What It Is, What It Does. UPOV Publication No 437(E) [online]. Available at . Woods, M. (2002) ‘Food for Thought: the Biopiracy of Jasmine and Basmati Rice’, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 13, 123.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2014) Vol. 17, no. 5–6

159

Suggest Documents