Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.On July 5, the Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety. The appeal was against an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights’ Authority (PPVFRA), revoking PepsiCo’s registration vis-a-vis the unique potato variety developed by it. The Act provides an effective framework to conserve and encourage the development of various plant varieties. It established an effective system to safeguard and recognise the rights of breeders, researchers and farmers to promote agricultural development in the country. Additionally, it also facilitates the mushrooming of the Indian seed industry to ensure the availability of high-quality seeds and planting materials to farmers.According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds — that the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant; that the registration certificate was granted to an ineligible person; when the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents; a failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration; a failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence; failure to comply with the acts, rules, regulations and directions issued by the Authority; and if the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application dated February 16, 2012, despite furnishing the date of its commercialisation in India to be December 17, 2009. However, to be registered as a “new variant” an additional requirement of ‘novelty’ in addition to ‘distinctiveness’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘stability’ must be satisfied one year before the date of filing of the application for registration. The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.India is an agri-based economy with the agriculture sector having the highest workforce, nearly 152 million as of FY2021 as per Statista. Multinational food processing companies and investors must prioritise the well-being of farmers and their rights by developing a comprehensive understanding of India’s local laws, particularly the PPV&FR Act 2001, and recognise the safeguards and protections it provides to farmers.Q.According to the Delhi High Courts decision, why was PepsiCos appeal regarding the patent rights for its unique potato variety rejected?a)Incorrect information furnished in the registration applicationb)Violation of public interestc)Failure to provide the required seeds for compulsory licensed)Lack of distinctiveness in the potato varietyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.