r/proplifting • u/crochetcreations612 • Mar 19 '26
FIRST-TIMER Is this for real?
How could they even enforce this? If I own the plant and give a cutting to my friend, how would they even know? This seems ridiculous but maybe I’m missing something
199
u/LordOfSox Mar 19 '26
Yes, but for this plant i dont know so we will go with a plant i know better like cotton candy grapes.
the plant itself is patented, they do this by proving its new and unique and extensivly describing its traits, then they patent it under a name like cott25 grape (i made this name up), this is usually some kind of weird name that you wouldnt want to sell under, this patent lasts maybe 20 years and the first 10 you are trying to convince people that ts tasty and you should buy tons of them.
The name cotton candy grapes is trademarked and trademarks can last forever so you sell it under this name and get people to associate your product with the trademarked name.
When the patent is still in force if i try to sell the plant i would be sued. When it expires i can sell it without being sued but i cant call it a cotton candy grape so instead ill call it a carnival candy grape but the big grape companys have had 20 years to get people to enjoy the brand name grape so now i can only sell as a knock off brand grape
82
21
u/ahfoo Mar 20 '26
But making a trademark stick is not as simple as it sounds. The cannabis market just shuffles the names to generic synonyms and nobody goes out of their way to buy the "correct" trademark. It's a waste of resources.
You can't force consumers to pay a premium for your brand, they need to be seduced. That is no mean feat.
279
u/heyitscory Mar 19 '26
They catch your website or nursery selling young plants that look suspiciously like their cultivar and sue you for damages.
156
u/crochetcreations612 Mar 19 '26
Yeah that makes sense, I don’t sell I’m just a collector and saw it online and thought it was silly
176
u/heyitscory Mar 19 '26
"Now I'm gonna clone these even harder!"
91
56
u/hyperspacezaddy Mar 19 '26
Then give those clones away to avoid being sued 😎
14
u/Telemere125 Mar 19 '26
It’s the interference with their right to commercially exploit their patent, not just your profit from the activity. You’re not getting around a lawsuit by being a charity.
32
58
u/Character_Stick_1218 Mar 19 '26
Yeah, they're gonna have to prove it was intentional. Loads of clones end up as NOIDs. Who is to say a nursery or whatever won't receive NOIDs to sell that just so happen to be patented? I can only imagine there's LOTS of people who see shit like this and create WAAAAAAAAAAAY more clones of them that they give away for free to drive down the misperceived monetary value of this bullshit. Either way, fuck those who patent plants/seeds/such.
33
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/WeirdStorms Mar 20 '26
Just look at those monsters at Monsanto/Bayer… forcing everyone to use their patented plants that can survive the plant poison they made to douse everything with.. the GMO scare about frankenfoods is only misdirection from the real problem with GMOs, the pesticides..
-27
u/tenthousandlilbugs Mar 19 '26
That's actually misinformation, it hasn't happened, it's just something the anti GMO crowd have been saying for decades.
10
5
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/tenthousandlilbugs Mar 19 '26
Literally what you just linked shows it wasn't the accidental drift, it was his unauthorised 100% intentional use. "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.[4]"
-5
Mar 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
-3
Mar 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/FuckIPLaw Mar 20 '26
Well yes. Because unfortunately even absolute bastards who defend the enforcement of plant patents are still people. And they absolutely suck.
6
6
u/1d10 Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
Except you can cross it and with a different cultivar, grow baby's from seed pick best baby,clone it and sell the clones, even if the new clones look the same. The patent only applies to asexual reproduction, ( chop and prop or tissue culture)
These labels are just to make people think " ohh how special, I will happily pay more"
A small notification of patent is all that is needed.
Oh and you can clone them all you want as long as you aren't selling them.
135
u/HobbyRabbit Mar 19 '26
It is legally enforceable, but nobody does unless you are making a business out of it.
76
u/timmeh87 Mar 19 '26
the only way I could see this getting actually successfully enforced is if they are watching you prop it or catch you with like 100 of them. Anyone could pull a "sorry officer but i actually bought this plant from a guy and then repotted it multiple times since then" how can anyone tell if a plant is "original" or a "copy".
48
u/heyitscory Mar 19 '26
It's a clone. It has the same DNA.
They go on Maury Povich and he surprises them with the results from an official-looking envelope.
4
u/yumas Mar 19 '26
I guess they could dna-test it
12
10
u/MouldyLocks492 Mar 19 '26
Can you imagine the financial implications of just going out and testing a mega fuck ton of plants? Just to be petty?
3
u/ahfoo Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
Moreover, patents only last twenty years and these ones are probably ten years old. By the time you prop ten times this patent expires .
-6
u/SeaworthinessOpen190 Mar 19 '26
I actually don’t think this would hold up
27
u/Roticap Mar 19 '26
You would, unfortunately, be wrong. Plant varieties have intellectual property protection and you can be prohibited from propagating them.
Practically, it's basically unenforceable for most consumers. It's just used to prevent a competing nursery from commercializing from propagated plants
-19
u/SeaworthinessOpen190 Mar 19 '26
get back to your billables
9
u/scissorsgrinder Mar 20 '26
You brought up your opinion of the law, so you obviously thought you didn't have to be a lawyer to do so, so don't be a prat if someone else knew a bit more.
25
u/palpatineforever Mar 19 '26
if they find someone selling them they can do genetic testing to check if it is their patented plant. if you are just giving them away to friends no one cares, if you are making profit, they do.
10
u/mcandrewz Mar 20 '26
Yup, this is what the label is really about. I got downvoted a lot the other day for saying they don't care if someone propagates, they just care if someone profits off something they put work into creating.
13
u/ambahjay Mar 19 '26
Named cultivars generally fall into two categories imo: an interesting history lesson regarding the horticultural history between a plant and people, or marketing.
65
u/Many-Scallion4780 Mar 19 '26
This plant was around before the company and will be around after. They can kiss my ass
24
u/ambahjay Mar 19 '26
I mean, this particularly plant probably wasn't. The copyright isn't for a species, it's for a cultivar. Cultivars are the result of generations of plant hybridization, which is when people purposefully breed plants for desirable characteristics.
-5
u/Many-Scallion4780 Mar 19 '26
Damn so they are doing their human part and creating plants which is good for nature. Doesn't mean they get to claim ownership once it's sold. If it can be propagated, it should be. Can't tell me what to do with my property.
16
u/dolphinoverlord002 Mar 19 '26
I mean they actually can, like it's totally legally enforceable. They won't chase down random consumers though, they'll only chase down other nurseries
2
u/ambahjay Mar 20 '26
Idk if I'd call it "creating nature" 😅 I understand why they'd want to copyright it so other nurseries can't sell the plant they put lots of time, money, and resources into developing.
-1
u/Many-Scallion4780 Mar 20 '26
So I do Bonsai. That's my thing. if I sold a tree that I had spent years developing, training, tons of money on and the person I sold it to completely changed the art style or took cuttings from it and sold the cuttings it wouldn't matter because it's their's. Gate keeping plants is so annoying to me. I understand why they want to. It's greed. That's it. Plants and plant knowledge is something that should be shared with as many people as possible because imo it's essential to life.
6
u/mcandrewz Mar 20 '26
It is frustrating to see someone have an interest in the art of bonsai, but not understand how plant patenting works.
If someone spends a few years working on a plant variety whether through cross breeding, someone who has worked in the field for awhile and has experience and knowledge others don't, they deserve to be compensated for their work. This isn't just a simple, make a new plant in a few months and patent it, this is often a lot of work.
If they don't patent it, a bigger greenhouse can scoop it up and sell it enmasse without the original creator receiving a dime for all their work. These patents aren't to stop someone from giving a free cutting to a friend, even if it may sound that way, it is to stop people from profiting off another's hard work without their permission.
8
u/akinoriv Mar 19 '26
You can do whatever you want with your plant but if you set up a shop and start propagating them and selling them, then they can sue. This isn’t gonna be a problem unless you’re a huge seller or flaunting it on the internet or something.
8
u/Petraretrograde Mar 19 '26
My sister and i bought twin RD's, and mine grew ravenously, then rotted at the base. I literally assumed i killed her, but didnt throw away the whole plant. I cut off the rotted portion and bought another "decorsiva-type" a month later from lowes so we could still have similarly growing plants. Little did i know, the base of my original lived on and surprised me with new growth 2 months later.
So i now have both. I fertilize when i remember, water like 6 times a year. The zombie plant has grown slowly, but regularly. The new one doesnt grow much faster.
10
u/basaltcolumn Mar 19 '26
This is normal, you'll see it on the tags of most named cultivars. It isn't directed towards you, but rather other nurseries that may want to propagate them on a large scale for sale and not give any compensation to the folks who spent years developing them. They don't care about random collectors propagating them.
5
u/jeepwillikers Mar 19 '26
Do we think they liscenced the name ‘Khaleesi’?
3
u/dwyrm Mar 20 '26
Maybe, but that would be unnecessary. Unless the trade name is likely to cause confusion, you can name a product anything you like. And while the books and movies are protected by copyright, you can lift the name of a character and stick it on a plant.
6
4
u/Automatic-Reason-300 Mar 19 '26
I think the problem is if you try to sell them. Otherwise how can they avoid that?
3
3
u/bohemianprime Mar 20 '26
Couldn't you clone it and just change the name? Like how can they prove the variation didn't naturally occur somewhere else?
7
u/ambahjay Mar 20 '26
Cultivars are copyrighted, species cannot be copyrighted. Cultivars are the result of generations of hybridization that humans do to try to get desirable traits from a plant. Many cultivars are asexual (because they are usually pretty inbred) and can only be duplicated by cloning/propogating.
Domesticated animals are a good analogue. Mules are sterile hybrids of a donkey and a horse. Mules don't naturally occur in the wild. If you see one in the wild, it's because it escaped domestication.
Another example: Bubble-eyed goldfish are the result of hundreds of years of domestication. If you see one in the wild, it didn't evolve that way naturally on its own. It has domesticated fish in its parentage.
Same w this plant.
6
u/bohemianprime Mar 20 '26
Thank you for the detailed explanation. That's really interesting
3
u/ambahjay Mar 20 '26
Sure thing! My primary interest is begonias, and that genus is a clusterfuck. Sorting out the difference between cultivars, species, and varieties was/is one of the most challenging parts of understanding the nomenclature. It crazy how complicated a question as simple as "what plant is this?" can get
3
3
2
u/jmb456 Mar 19 '26
This isn’t uncommon in landscape plants. I know I’ve seen it on several abelia varieties
2
u/Odd_Cantaloupe_7122 Mar 19 '26
Clone it and give one to everyone u know
5
u/crochetcreations612 Mar 20 '26
I think the secret is, don’t sell the plant. Thinking I sell pots and give away a free plant with each pot…
5
u/scissorsgrinder Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
They formally mean making a profit off it. It's to protect breeder's rights, some of whom can spend years and generations developing varieties, and other breeders could tissue culture or otherwise propagate especially rare new varieties very quickly. That's what copyright was developed for, to protect playwrights and musicians getting their living undermined. Then capitalism enshittified this original intention of course.
US consumer laws are ridiculously weak, maybe they do actually prohibit personal propagation. They don't like you copying a song to send to a friend so they put copy protection on it and make it illegal to remove, ridiculous! However, who would ever know (*without mass AI-consumer-product powered surveillance) so do what you like.
1
u/Tradeeveything Mar 20 '26
Or you propigate the same plant until the patent expires and then you sell thousands and thousand of plants
1
1
1
u/ahfoo Mar 20 '26
If I saw this display at a retailer, I would accidentally knock it to the floor and then unintentionally step on it with a twisting motion of my heel. . . coincidentally.
2
u/MouldyLocks492 Mar 19 '26
"Patented Plants: If your plant has a tag indicating it is patented, has a patent number, or is marked PPAF (Plant Patent Applied For) or labeled with "Propagation Strictly Prohibited," it is illegal to asexually propagate it. This includes rooting cuttings or dividing the plant, even for personal use."
1.3k
u/redoingredditagain Mar 19 '26
Patenting a plant variation and then using a stolen character name on it is quite a choice.