Farmers vs. Pepsi
( article by Pawan Jaybhaye, roll no M2131 )
Recently, a story that involved the corporate giant PepsiCo suing several farmers in Gujarat, India, for growing a kind of potatoes that the firm claimed was its own, attracted everyone’s attention. Politicians, farmers, and campaigners all have strong opinions on the issue.
A international food, snack, and beverage company with its main office in Harrison, New York, is called PepsiCo, Inc. All facets of the food and beverage market are covered by PepsiCo’s operations. It is in charge of its products’ production, marketing, and distribution.
Case-Related Facts:
The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, calls for the creation of a strong framework to safeguard both farmers’ rights and plant variations. This was the first instance of its sort under the Act where PepsiCo filed a lawsuit for permanent injunction to stop infringement of the variety FL 2027 (also known as FC-5 commercially) and sought damages from each farmer in the amount of Rs. 1.05 crores. According to the business, the farmers had been producing, selling, etc. the variety unlawfully without their consent, infringing on PepsiCo’s legal rights under Sections 641 and 652 of the Act.
According to PepsiCo, the aforementioned type was produced by farmers in January 2019 after which samples were taken and sent for analysis.
The DNA samples matched with the farmers’ potato variety, confirming a potential infringement. As a result, PepsiCo was granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by order dated April 8, 2019, preventing the farmers from growing or selling the variety PepsiCo registered until the next hearing, which is scheduled for April 26. 3 However, this was the first time a farmer in Gujarat, India, was discovered in possession of the variety that was supposedly registered with PepsiCo. PepsiCo was known to have agreements with farmers in Punjab for cultivation of the relevant variety under the buyback scheme.
Controversy :
Politicians, activists, and farmers’ organisations criticised the court’s order, claiming that the firm was ignoring the rights of underprivileged farmers. The commotion was enormous. However, several specialists disagreed with PepsiCo and said that the farmers had in fact violated intellectual property. The truth is that PepsiCo submitted an application for registration of the variety as a “new variety” on February 2, 2012, and the Plant Variety Registry subsequently approved registration, thereby designating PepsiCo as the variety’s registered owner. On the other side, the farmers who were sued assert that they purchased the potato seeds on the “grey market,” which is a local marketplace where they can be found. Farm activists have further stated that since the potato variety was only registered in 2016—five years after it was first introduced in India—it is only reasonable that it spread among farmers who do not have a contractual relationship with the firm. Given that IPR has been used for the first time in India under a statute protecting breeders’ and farmers’ rights, the question is who is allowed to cultivate certain crops. However, India’s legal system is distinctive in that it safeguards both farmers’ and breeders’ rights. PepsiCo relies on Article 64, and the rights established under this Act are sold, exported, imported, or sold, exported by a breeder, registered agent, or non-licensee. , States to be violated if produced by import. It`s unclear whether the farmers were selling potato seeds or the raw potato products that are the raw material for Lay’s chips. Another interesting point is that farmers claim protection for Section 39 (1) (iv) by claiming that seeds are on the market long before PepsiCo registers. This raises questions about why PepsiCo took no action in 2019. The incident may have started earlier.
However, things have turned quite unexpectedly, as the company reportedly withdrew all proceedings against farmers on May 10, 2019, under strong pressure from headquarters and public and political parties in India. rice field. In a statement, PepsiCo said, “After consultation with the government, the company has agreed to withdraw its claims to farmers. To find a long-term and friendly solution to all questions related to seed protection. We rely on the consultations that have been made.
Surprisingly, the company has decided not to continue the legal dispute with the farmers. PepsiCo has more to lose than farmers because potatoes are the essence of their products. Raise brings billions of dollars in revenue to the company each year.