A recent decision of the Court of Catania (Italy) provides an important reminder for the plant breeding and seed sector: without a registered intellectual property right, even technically sophisticated allegations of varietal similarity may not be sufficient to obtain strong judicial protection.

The case concerned two tomato varieties allegedly showing substantial similarity.

The claimant was commercializing the tomato variety “Carlitos”, described as a red cluster tomato characterized by high resistance to Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus (ToBRFV), a trait of major commercial relevance in the current tomato seed market.

The claimant sought a broad set of urgent measures, including inspections, access to facilities and documentation, seizure of materials and injunctive relief.

However, the claimant had not asserted the ownership of a registered plant variety right under the Italian Industrial Property Code, nor under the CPVO system.

This aspect became decisive.

In its order of 24 April 2026, the Court held that the special remedies available under industrial property law, including seizure and evidentiary description measures, are exceptional tools reserved for the protection of recognized IP rights and cannot be extended by analogy to ordinary unfair competition claims.

In practical terms, the message is straightforward: if no plant variety right exists, courts may be reluctant to authorize intrusive investigative measures merely on the basis of alleged varietal similarity.

Beyond biology: legal exclusivity still matters

The decision is particularly interesting because the dispute revolved around biological and genetic proximity between plant materials. Yet the Court clearly distinguished technical similarity from legal exclusivity.

According to the Court, the mere fact that two plant products may appear visually or genetically close does not automatically amount to unfair competition. What matters is the existence of a legally enforceable exclusive right or, alternatively, clear evidence of commercially unfair conduct.

This distinction is highly relevant in today’s breeding environment, where molecular tools increasingly allow rapid comparison between plant materials; breeding cycles are accelerating; and commercial pressure often pushes companies toward aggressive pre-litigation strategies.

The ruling suggests that courts are not willing to transform unfair competition law into a substitute system for plant variety protection.

The strategic value of plant variety rights

The case therefore highlights, once again, the strategic importance of securing formal IP protection for plant innovation.

Plant variety rights do not merely confer exclusive commercialization rights. They also provide access to a procedural framework specifically designed for enforcement, including specialized courts, stronger evidentiary measures, seizure and inspection tools and more effective urgent relief mechanisms.

Without such rights, enforcement strategies become significantly more difficult and uncertain.

The decision is also a reminder that technical evidence alone may not suffice if the legal basis for exclusivity is missing. In the case at hand, the Court criticized the reliance on private genetic analyses with unclear chain of custody, visual assessments based on photographs and allegations concerning material that had not yet been commercialized.

A broader signal for the seed industry

Beyond the specific facts, the ruling may signal a broader judicial trend in Europe: a stricter separation between IP enforcement and general market competition disputes in the plant sector.

For breeders, seed companies, research institutions and investors, the practical implication is clear:

protecting innovation early through plant variety rights, patents where available, contractual protection and coordinated IP strategies, remains essential not only for commercialization, but also for effective enforcement.

As plant breeding becomes increasingly technology-driven and competitive, the existence of a formal IP title may ultimately determine whether a company can merely suspect appropriation of innovation, or effectively act against it.

Thanks to Valentina Predazzi for contributing to this news item.

Further information

Questions on European plant variety rights in Europe? Contact us, we are happy to help.