Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04ANKARA6441
2004-11-18 14:25:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Ankara
Cable title:  

US based D&PL Seed Co denied Plant Variety

Tags:  ETRD EAGR KPAO TU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

181425Z Nov 04
UNCLAS ANKARA 006441 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EB/TPP/MTA/IPC
DEPT PLEASE PASS USTR FOR BPECK, JSANTAMAURO
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/DDEFALCO
DEPT PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
DEPT PASS USPTO JURBAN
USDA FOR FAS/COTS PPACKNETT, ITP/BLEIER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD EAGR KPAO TU
SUBJECT: US based D&PL Seed Co denied Plant Variety
Protection for five cottonseed varieties by Turkish Min Ag


Sensitive but Unclassified. Not for Internet Distribution.

UNCLAS ANKARA 006441

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EB/TPP/MTA/IPC
DEPT PLEASE PASS USTR FOR BPECK, JSANTAMAURO
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/DDEFALCO
DEPT PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
DEPT PASS USPTO JURBAN
USDA FOR FAS/COTS PPACKNETT, ITP/BLEIER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD EAGR KPAO TU
SUBJECT: US based D&PL Seed Co denied Plant Variety
Protection for five cottonseed varieties by Turkish Min Ag


Sensitive but Unclassified. Not for Internet Distribution.


1. (SBU) THIS IS AN ACTION CABLE. PLEASE SEE PARA 6.


2. (SBU) SUMMARY. THE TURKISH MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(MARA) HAS DENIED DELTA AND PINE LAND COMPANY (D&PL) OF
SCOTT, MISSOURI, PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION (PVP) FOR FIVE
COTTONSEED VARIETIES UNDER TURKISH LAW 5042. LOSS OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION FOR THESE SEED VARIETIES
WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT
ON TURK DELTAPINE. D&PL REQUESTS EMBASSY ASSISTANCE TO
RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE.


3. (SBU) TURKEY RECENTLY ADOPTED A PLANT VARIETY
PROTECTION LAW (LAW 5042). REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THIS
LAW WERE FINALIZED IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. TURK
DELTAPINE, A SUBSIDIARY OF D&PL THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN
TURKEY IN 1992, FILED SIX APPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTION UNDER
THIS LAW. FROM THE ONSET, TURK DELTAPINE HAS EXPERIENCED
PROBLEMS WITH MARA OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF TWO KEY
PROVISIONAL ARTICLES. THE FIRST COVERS VARIETIES THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN REGISTERED UNDER ARTICLE 6(3) OF LAW 308,
INTRODUCED IN FEBRUARY OF 1994. THE SECOND PROVIDES
COVERAGE FOR VARIETIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD OR REGISTERED
BEFORE.


4. (SBU) TURK DELTAPINE BELIEVES THAT THEY SHOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 74, PROVISIONAL
ARTICLE 1. ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 74, PROVISIONAL ARTICLE 1
OF LAW 5042, VARIETIES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY `PROTECTED'
UNDER THE FEB 26, 1994 ARTICLE 6(3) OF LAW 308 ARE ELIGIBLE
FOR PROTECTION. ACCORDING TO TURK DELTA PINE, ARTICLE 6(3)
OF LAW 308 STATES THAT VARIETIES REGISTERED - AS ALL THEIR
VARIETIES WERE - AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE PROTECTION. ACCORDING
TO MARA, TURK DELTA PINE NEEDED TO WRITE ANOTHER LETTER TO
ASK FOR PROTECTION. SINCE THEY NEVER RECEIVED A
CERTIFICATE, THEY ARE NOT NOW ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION UNDER
ARTICLE 74 PROVISIONAL ARTICLE 1 OF LAW 5042. THIS LOGIC IS
FLAWED, HOWEVER, SINCE ARTICLE 6(3) WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AND HENCE NO VARIETIES WERE EVER
ACTUALLY PROVIDED PROTECTION. IN SUMMARY, MARA WILL ONLY
PROVIDE PROTECTION UNDER THE NEW PVP LAW TO NEW VARIETIES
AND THOSE VARIETIES THAT HAD PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 6(3)
OF LAW 308 SINCE FEBRUARY 26, 1994. SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS
NEVER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED, NO VARIETIES WERE GRANTED THIS
PROTECTION, AND NO ONE WOULD APPEAR ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION
UNDER THE NEW LAW.


5. (SBU) NOTE. TURKEY'S PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION LAW
5042 WAS ON THE AGENDA OF THE UPOV MEETING IN GENEVA TO BE
EXAMINED FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE 1991 ACT OF THE UPOV
CONVENTION. APPARENTLY TURKEY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A UPOV
MEMBER. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE ISSUE IS NOT WITH THE
REGULATIONS, BUT WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS
AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4. FURTHER, TURK DELTAPINE IS ALSO
CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN A LEGAL DISPUTE WITH A LOCAL SEED
GROWER WHO IS MULTIPLYING AND SELLING ONE OF THE VARIETIES
THAT IS IN QUESTION. THE PROTECTION, OR LACK THEREOF
PROVIDED TO D&PL FOR THIS VARIETY WILL HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT
ON THAT CASE. WHILE IT CANNOT BE CONFIRMED, THIS LEGAL CASE
MAY BE INFLUENCING MARA INTERPRETATION OF THE PVP LAW. END
NOTE.


6. (SBU) POST HAS CONTACTED OTHER SEED COMPANIES, BUT
NONE HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY ARE HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS
SINCE THEY ARE MAINLY MARKETING HYBRID SEEDS THAT DON'T NEED
TO BE REGISTERED FOR PROTECTION.


7. (SBU) ACTION. D&PL HAS INDICATED THAT THEY MAY PURSUE
THE CASE IN THE TURKISH COURT SYSTEM, BUT AREN'T OPTIMISTIC
OF THOSE PROSPECTS. IN THE MEANTIME, D&PL HAS REQUESTED
EMBASSY ASSISTANCE TO RESOLVE THIS CASE. POST REQUESTS
GUIDANCE FROM RELEVANT AGENCIES ON WHAT KIND OF PLANT
VARIETY PROTECTION D&PL ARE ENTITLED TO, ACCORDING TO UPOV
CONVENTION, AND WHAT COURSE OF ACTION IS RECOMMENDED AS A
RESULT.

EDELMAN