LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 811Decided 5 Aug 2026
SLP(C) No.-010320-010321 - 2024
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

PepsiCo India Holdings had registered a potato variety, "FL 2027," under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. The petitioner, an activist advocating for farmers' rights, sought revocation of this registration under Section 34 of the Act, partly on the ground that PepsiCo had filed infringement suits against individual farmers, which she characterised as an abuse aimed at intimidating them. The revocation authority partly allowed revocation; on cross-appeals, the High Court's Division Bench sustained the revocation on some grounds but rejected the argument that PepsiCo's infringement suits were vexatious or predatory.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that merely filing suits to protect a registered variety, without more, cannot by itself be treated as intimidatory or vexatious conduct justifying revocation under Section 34(h) of the Act: any specific allegation of a vexatious suit would need to be proved in the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment on this point. However, since the petitioner was pursuing the farmers' collective interest rather than a personal claim, the Court clarified that any individual farmer facing a suit from PepsiCo remains free to invoke the statutory protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act (the right to save, use, sow, exchange or sell farm produce including seed (other than branded seed)) and prove they fall within its protection in that very proceeding.

Lesson Learnt

A company holding a registered plant variety can sue farmers for infringement, and simply filing such suits is not, by itself, illegal harassment, but individual farmers retain a distinct statutory right under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act to save, use, and exchange (non-branded) seed, which they can raise as a defence whenever such a suit is brought against them.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case