Deroose Plants secures final Supreme Court win in ‘Class’ plant variety rights enforcement

On 31 July 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China rendered its final judgment in Case (2024) Supreme People’s Court IP Civil Final No. 955, marking a definitive victory for Deroose Plants in its plant variety rights enforcement action concerning the protected ornamental bromeliad variety ‘Class ‘(客乃思).

The Supreme People’s Court reversed the first‑instance judgment and ordered Shanghai Chunfang Flower Nursery and Chen Xiongfang to immediately cease the production, propagation and sale of propagating material of the “Class” variety. In addition, Shanghai Chunfang Flower Nursery and Chen Xiongfang were held jointly and severally liable to compensate Shanghai Flower Port Deroose Plants Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable enforcement expenses, totalling RMB 1.25 million (Approx. EUR 160,000).

About ‘Class’
‘Class’, sold commercially in China under the trade name “经典平头红”, is a protected Guzmania bromeliad variety owned by Deroose Plants under Plant Variety Right No. CNA20080645.9, granted in 2014.

Judicial confirmation of a novel identification method
Given that there is currently no national or industry standard specifically applicable to molecular marker detection for Guzmania varieties, the Supreme People’s Court referred to the national standard Plant Variety Identification – MNP Marker Method (GB/T 38551‑2020) to compare the alleged infringing plants with the official reference sample of the protected variety. The test results were unequivocal: a total of 12,129 genetic loci were compared, and no differences were found – the genetic similarity was 100.00%. After reviewing the source of the samples, the qualifications of the testing institution and the testing methodology employed, the Supreme People’s Court accepted the test report and determined that the plants sold by the defendants constituted propagating material of the protected “Class” variety.

“Over the past several years, our team in China has refined a workable approach to plant variety rights enforcement. Today, we can screen suspected infringement scientifically at an early stage and, where the evidence confirms our concerns, take appropriate legal steps efficiently,” says Lucas Vanhaelewyn, Managing Director China at Deroose Plants.

More broadly, this finding is significant for the protection of new plant varieties: disputes over variety identity can be resolved through authoritative and scientifically sound testing, without having to rely solely on trade names or phenotypic traits.

Liability determination: Based on substantive commercial activities
The judgment also sends a clear message regarding liability. The Court examined the substance of the relevant commercial activities and found that both the registered horticultural business entity and the individual defendant jointly committed the infringing acts, and thus should bear joint and several liability. The Court did not accept the argument that the individual’s actions were independent of the registered business entity.

For growers, propagators and traders, the practical takeaway is unmistakable: protected plant material must have a legitimate and traceable source. Operators involved in the production or sale of unauthorised material cannot simply assume that their own liability will be extinguished by the involvement of other individuals, trade names or purported suppliers in the transaction chain.

The Court also examined the economic consequences of the infringement. Although the defendants did not provide relevant accounting records or business documents, the Court assessed the scale of operations, selling prices, profit margins and the proven duration of the infringement based on the commercial evidence on record. After calculation, the Court found that the defendants ‘profits derived from infringement exceeded the RMB 1.25 million claimed by Deroose Plants in the second instance, and therefore upheld Deroose Plants ‘claim in its entirety, including reasonable enforcement costs.

This demonstrates that incomplete or missing business records do not prevent the Court from evaluating the economic benefits arising from unauthorised propagation based on the available evidence, and from awarding compensation commensurate with the commercial scale of the infringing activities.

© Deroose Plants

Broader implications
This is not the first time Deroose Plants has successfully enforced its new plant variety rights in China. Together with a previous Supreme People’s Court victory obtained by Deroose Plants in another ornamental bromeliad variety rights case, this judgment further reinforces a consistent principle: protected varieties may not be produced, propagated or sold without authorisation.

The protection of new plant variety rights not only safeguards the legitimate interests of breeders, but also protects the rights of compliant growers and authorised variety distributors, thereby fostering a healthy, stable and long‑term business environment within the industry.

Deroose Plants will continue to conduct market monitoring with professionalism, rigour and prudence. At the same time, intellectual property protection and commercial cooperation are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Deroose Plants remains committed to an open‑cooperation philosophy and actively engages with cultivation enterprises, tissue culture laboratories, distributors and various market participants, fostering diversified collaboration in areas such as compliant sourcing of seedlings, licensed standardised production and long‑term in‑depth business partnerships.