I have recently seen 2 roses that have ‘patent protection’ claimed on the label ( no propagation at all ) but without a registered varietal name being given.
I thought that a rose had to have a varietal name to be patented? or is my thinking incorrect? Maybe its an Australian change?
Any info greatly appreciated.
I took note of this as both were interesting to me as possible additions to my breeding pool, and I wanted to check their parentage.
My curious mind wants to know: does the patent statement suggest that the plant is not to be used for breeding purposes as well as asexual propagation? USA Patents do not extend to include the use of pollen or seeds from patented varieties, nor should they.
Paul & all
Things are to be clarified here.
Two things may be patented about roses: either the var with a breeder’s certificate that requires a varietal name that is usually different from the commercial(s) name(s) and/or the name only as a trade mark.
Protected vars asexual propagation implies breeders agreement.
Prohibition of protected vars asexual propagation without breeders agreement practically is when for sale only.
Free use of plants for breeding purpose “cannot” be restricted. Even if claimed.
This was absolute untill a few laws were adopted here and there allowing indefinite property of manmade geneticaly modified beings progenies. This is a big error I hope will be rectified.
Name registration and patent protection are handled by different independent organizations. Name registration is handled by the IRAR (International Registration Authority for Roses - see link) for the whole world. Patent registration is done by many different national patent offices. The U.S. Patent Office does not require a rose to be registered with the IRAR before it is patented; other countries may have different requirements. Name trademarks are another issue that is indpendent of patents, at least in the U.S.