7 U.S.C. § 2568

False marking; cease and desist orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each of the following acts, if performed in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of sexually or asexually reproducible plant material or tubers or parts of tubers, is prohibited, and the Secretary may, if the Secretary determines after an opportunity for hearing that the act is being so performed, issue an order to cease and desist, said order being binding unless appealed under section 2461 of this title:(1) Use of the words “U.S. Protected Variety” or any word or number importing that the material is a variety protected under certificate, when it is not.(2) Use of any wording importing that the material is a variety for which an application for plant variety protection is pending, when it is not.(3) Use of either the phrase “Unauthorized Propagation Prohibited” or “Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited” or similar phrase without reasonable basis. Any reasonable basis expires one year after the first sale of the variety except as justified thereafter by a pending application or a certificate still in force.(4) Failure to use the name of a variety for which a certificate of protection has been issued under this chapter, even after the expiration of the certificate, except that lawn, turf, or forage grass seed, or alfalfa or clover seed may be sold without a variety name unless use of the name of a variety for which a certificate of protection has been issued under this chapter is required under State law.(b) Anyone convicted of violating a binding cease and desist order, or of performing any act prohibited in subsection (a) of this section for the purpose of deceiving the public, shall be fined not more than $10,000 and not less than $500.(c) Anyone whose business is damaged or is likely to be damaged by an act prohibited in subsection (a) of this section, or is subjected to competition in connection with which such act is performed, may have remedy by civil action.(Pub. L. 91–577, title III, § 128, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1557; Pub. L. 96–574, § 19(c), Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3352; Pub. L. 103–349, §§ 12, 13(v), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3142, 3144; Pub. L. 115–334, title X, § 10108(d), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4906.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–334 inserted “or asexually” after “sexually” in introductory provisions.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–349 inserted “or tubers or parts of tubers” after “plant material” and substituted “if the Secretary determines” for “if he determines” in introductory provisions, and added par. (4).

1980—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 96–574 substituted provisions respecting prohibitions for use of phrases “Unauthorized Propagation Prohibited” and “Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited” for provisions respecting prohibitions for use of phrase “propagation prohibited”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2005 · leading case: Edward Showmaker v. Advanta Usa, Inc. (Formally Known as Garst Seed Co. & Doing Bus. as Garst Seed Co.), 411 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Edward Showmaker v. Advanta Usa, Inc. (Formally Known as Garst Seed Co. & Doing Bus. as Garst Seed Co.), 411 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Showmaker specifically refers to this portion of the Agreement in his false marking claim under 7 U.S.C. § 2568 . The Agreement does not include any reference to the PVPA or to any PVPA certificates.”

Showmaker v. Advanta USA (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “’s (Advanta) Soybean Purchase Agreements (Agreement) violated the misbranding provision of the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2568 (1994). Showmaker v. Advanta USA, Inc.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.