PepsiCo. is a multinational company (MNC), originally based in America, which has its operations all over the world. The American giants had filed an IP suit against the farmers of Gujarat for infringement of intellectual property rights last year. The MNC claimed that the farmers had grown a potato variety named FL 2027, also called FC5 without the permission of the company. This variety of potatoes is an intellectual property of the company as per the suit. The MNC sought damages of Rs. 1 crore from each of the nine farmers.
The farmers of this nation are the ones who face all the difficulties and yet they produce crops for which they are never paid enough. Seeking that amount from each farmer seemed highly irrational since most barely manage to have two meals a day. This made the government intervene. The Gujarat government sided with the farmers and sought their protection. After having discussions with the government, the company decided to withdraw the suit and amicably settle the dispute out of the court. The farmer groups, however, were against this out of court settlement even though that was finalized.
According to the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), Section 39(i)(iv) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001 was justifiable for the farmers and the company’s suit wouldn’t have been sustained thus there was no point settling with them out of court. The section said that farmers were entitled to use, sow, grow and sell any variety of crops as before the introduction of this Act except for branded seeds which are protected under the PPV&FR Act of 2001. Branded seeds would be those which are sold in packets or containers and are the intellectual property of someone. The variety of potatoes grown by the farmers of Gujarat was not grown from any branded seed and thus the farmers had the right to use, grow, sow and sell them. The PPV&FR Act, 2001 protects farmers to an extent which laws in no other countries do but the only drawback is that it is an intellectual property rights law.
The government of Gujarat justified its stance on an out of court settlement by saying that it was merely working in the interests of the farmers and was protecting them. Another issue with farmer’s rights is that they are always recognized under intellectual property whereas the farmers have very little knowledge of it.
My view of this matter was that the MNC was trying to bully the farmers by not letting them grow a certain kind of variety. The case may or may not have held up in the court of law and could have gone in either direction. The government of Gujarat did the right thing by supporting the farmers and showing unity and strength but little details are available on the out of court settlement which is strange. Another important point which this case brought forth was that spreading of awareness of their rights is a must amongst farmers. No farmer should be bullied into not selling or growing a certain variety unless it is an intellectual property of others and the awareness of intellectual property must be spread amongst farmers so as to avoid any further litigation against them.