{"id":5795,"date":"2017-09-21T11:00:48","date_gmt":"2017-09-21T09:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/?p=5795\/"},"modified":"2024-10-01T12:58:33","modified_gmt":"2024-10-01T10:58:33","slug":"sun-world-international-vs-puglia-export-fruits-plant-variety-rights-round-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/2017\/09\/21\/sun-world-international-vs-puglia-export-fruits-plant-variety-rights-round-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Sun World International vs Puglia Export Fruits – Plant Variety Rights (Round II)"},"content":{"rendered":"

On September 8, 2017, the full Court of Bari rejected the appeal brought by the Sun World International LLC against the order issued by the Court of first instance on July 3, 2017\u00a0 – that had granted Puglia Export Fruits grounds, revoking the \u201cdescription\u201d measure set forth by articles 128-130 of the Italian Code for Industrial Property (see the previous article<\/a>) – confirming that, under certain circumstances, a \u201cgenetic test<\/em>\u201d carried out on a grape variety, before and outside of a judicial procedure and thus in absence of a debate between the parties, has to be considered as lacking of probative value. Moreover, no relevance can be attached to the comparison of photographic reproductions concerning the grape varieties.<\/p>\n

In fact, Sun World International filed a complaint to the Board against the said order of July 3, 2017, claiming misapplication of the law and misinterpretation of convincing facts and documents which were of decisive importance in the context of the decision (insisting in the statement that the documentation provided was able to demonstrate the breach of patent rights) as well as undue recognition of the legal fees. The Board was demanded to fully reform the contested decision, confirming the inaudita altera parte<\/em> order obtained by the Bari Court against Puglia Export Fruits.<\/p>\n

The Board endorsed the reasoning set out in the order on the lack of probative value of the \u201cexpert inspection<\/em>\u201d (i.e. the \u201cgenetic test<\/em>\u201d on the grape variety) conducted by the plaintiff before and outside the proceeding and used as a basis of its compliant due to gain the inaudita altera parte<\/em> order. According to the Board\u2019s opinion, the facts and circumstances provided by the applicant to support its grounds (the purchase of a pack of \u201cseedless<\/em>\u201d, white grape in a supermarket by the applicant that has been sold by the respondent; the receipt of that purchase reporting the word \u201csweet, seedless grape<\/em>\u201d and the indication in the report of the genetic exam of the term \u201cSublima<\/em>\u201d as grape variety tested) were deemed to be not sufficient in order to reasonably demonstrate that the sample of grape bought in the supermarket was the same that had been tested.\u00a0 On the contrary, it has been considered that those circumstances founded the justified suspicion that the genetic exam could refer to a different grape variety (i.e. \u201cSublima\u201d).<\/u><\/p>\n

The Board also stated that, in itself, it was not possible to attach probative value to the mere comparison between the photographic reproductions of the grape varieties (the one bought in the supermarket and the one tested).<\/p>\n

Consequently, in the view of the fact that there were no elements able to identify with a certain degree of probability that the grape variety examined was the \u201cSugraone<\/em>\u201d variety, the Board entirely rejected the Sun World International\u2019s requests, confirming the contested order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On September 8, 2017, the full Court of Bari rejected the appeal brought by the Sun World International LLC against the order issued by the Court of first instance on July 3, 2017\u00a0 – that had granted Puglia Export Fruits grounds, revoking the \u201cdescription\u201d measure set forth by articles 128-130 of the Italian Code for…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":12169,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[252],"tags":[278,280,277,281,41,279,275,274,37,282,276,35],"post_series":[],"class_list":["post-5795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-plant-variety-rights","tag-anti-counterfeit","tag-contraffazione-brevetto","tag-counterfeit","tag-diritti-sulle-varieta-vegetali","tag-intellectual-property","tag-patent-rights","tag-pbr","tag-plant-breeder-rights","tag-plant-variety-rights","tag-proprieta-intellettuale","tag-pvr","tag-varieta-vegetali","entry","has-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5795"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5795\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5803,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5795\/revisions\/5803"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5795"},{"taxonomy":"post_series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weblegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_series?post=5795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}