This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

181425Z Nov 04

UNCLAS ANKARA 006441 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/MTA/IPC 
DEPT PLEASE PASS USTR FOR BPECK, JSANTAMAURO 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/DDEFALCO 
DEPT PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
DEPT PASS USPTO JURBAN 
USDA FOR FAS/COTS PPACKNETT, ITP/BLEIER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD EAGR KPAO TU
SUBJECT: US based D&PL Seed Co denied Plant Variety 
Protection for five cottonseed varieties by Turkish Min Ag 
 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified.  Not for Internet Distribution. 
 
¶1.   (SBU)  THIS IS AN ACTION CABLE.  PLEASE SEE PARA 6. 
 
¶2.   (SBU)  SUMMARY.  THE TURKISH MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 
  (MARA) HAS DENIED DELTA AND PINE LAND COMPANY (D&PL) OF 
  SCOTT, MISSOURI, PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION (PVP) FOR FIVE 
  COTTONSEED VARIETIES UNDER TURKISH LAW 5042.  LOSS OF 
  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION FOR THESE SEED VARIETIES 
  WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT 
  ON TURK DELTAPINE.  D&PL REQUESTS EMBASSY ASSISTANCE TO 
  RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE. 
 
¶3.   (SBU)  TURKEY RECENTLY ADOPTED A PLANT VARIETY 
  PROTECTION LAW (LAW 5042).  REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THIS 
  LAW WERE FINALIZED IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR.  TURK 
  DELTAPINE, A SUBSIDIARY OF D&PL THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 
  TURKEY IN 1992, FILED SIX APPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTION UNDER 
  THIS LAW.  FROM THE ONSET, TURK DELTAPINE HAS EXPERIENCED 
  PROBLEMS WITH MARA OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF TWO KEY 
  PROVISIONAL ARTICLES.  THE FIRST COVERS VARIETIES THAT HAVE 
  ALREADY BEEN REGISTERED UNDER ARTICLE 6(3) OF LAW 308, 
  INTRODUCED IN FEBRUARY OF 1994.  THE SECOND PROVIDES 
  COVERAGE FOR VARIETIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD OR REGISTERED 
  BEFORE. 
 
¶4.   (SBU) TURK DELTAPINE BELIEVES THAT THEY SHOULD BE 
  ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 74, PROVISIONAL 
  ARTICLE 1.  ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 74, PROVISIONAL ARTICLE 1 
  OF LAW 5042, VARIETIES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY `PROTECTED' 
  UNDER THE FEB 26, 1994 ARTICLE 6(3) OF LAW 308 ARE ELIGIBLE 
  FOR PROTECTION.  ACCORDING TO TURK DELTA PINE, ARTICLE 6(3) 
  OF LAW 308 STATES THAT VARIETIES REGISTERED - AS ALL THEIR 
  VARIETIES WERE - AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE PROTECTION. ACCORDING 
  TO MARA, TURK DELTA PINE NEEDED TO WRITE ANOTHER LETTER TO 
  ASK FOR PROTECTION.  SINCE THEY NEVER RECEIVED A 
  CERTIFICATE, THEY ARE NOT NOW ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION UNDER 
  ARTICLE 74 PROVISIONAL ARTICLE 1 OF LAW 5042.  THIS LOGIC IS 
  FLAWED, HOWEVER, SINCE ARTICLE 6(3) WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN 
  THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AND HENCE NO VARIETIES WERE EVER 
  ACTUALLY PROVIDED PROTECTION.  IN SUMMARY, MARA WILL ONLY 
  PROVIDE PROTECTION UNDER THE NEW PVP LAW TO NEW VARIETIES 
  AND THOSE VARIETIES THAT HAD PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 6(3) 
  OF LAW 308 SINCE FEBRUARY 26, 1994.  SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS 
  NEVER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED, NO VARIETIES WERE GRANTED THIS 
  PROTECTION, AND NO ONE WOULD APPEAR ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION 
  UNDER THE NEW LAW. 
 
¶5.   (SBU)  NOTE.  TURKEY'S PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION LAW 
  5042 WAS ON THE AGENDA OF THE UPOV MEETING IN GENEVA TO BE 
  EXAMINED FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE 1991 ACT OF THE UPOV 
  CONVENTION.  APPARENTLY TURKEY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A UPOV 
  MEMBER.  TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE ISSUE IS NOT WITH THE 
  REGULATIONS, BUT WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS 
  AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.  FURTHER, TURK DELTAPINE IS ALSO 
  CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN A LEGAL DISPUTE WITH A LOCAL SEED 
  GROWER WHO IS MULTIPLYING AND SELLING ONE OF THE VARIETIES 
  THAT IS IN QUESTION.  THE PROTECTION, OR LACK THEREOF 
  PROVIDED TO D&PL FOR THIS VARIETY WILL HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT 
  ON THAT CASE.  WHILE IT CANNOT BE CONFIRMED, THIS LEGAL CASE 
  MAY BE INFLUENCING MARA INTERPRETATION OF THE PVP LAW.  END 
  NOTE. 
 
¶6.   (SBU)  POST HAS CONTACTED OTHER SEED COMPANIES, BUT 
  NONE HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY ARE HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS 
  SINCE THEY ARE MAINLY MARKETING HYBRID SEEDS THAT DON'T NEED 
  TO BE REGISTERED FOR PROTECTION. 
 
¶7.   (SBU)  ACTION.  D&PL HAS INDICATED THAT THEY MAY PURSUE 
  THE CASE IN THE TURKISH COURT SYSTEM, BUT AREN'T OPTIMISTIC 
  OF THOSE PROSPECTS. IN THE MEANTIME, D&PL HAS REQUESTED 
  EMBASSY ASSISTANCE TO RESOLVE THIS CASE.  POST REQUESTS 
  GUIDANCE FROM RELEVANT AGENCIES ON WHAT KIND OF PLANT 
  VARIETY PROTECTION D&PL ARE ENTITLED TO, ACCORDING TO UPOV 
  CONVENTION, AND WHAT COURSE OF ACTION IS RECOMMENDED AS A 
  RESULT. 
 
EDELMAN