Zespri Awarded US$725,000 in Damages for China Plant Variety Rights Infringement
Published 30 October 2025
Xia Yu
According to a China Daily report dated October 27, in late October 2025, the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court (“Wuhan Court”) issued a ruling on the plant variety right (“PVR”) infringement case filed in 2023 by Zespri. The court found the primary defendant liable for unauthorized cultivation and sales of the Gold3 kiwifruit variety, constituting infringement, and ordered compensation of RMB5.2462 million (US$725,000) to Zespri. This represents the highest publicly reported compensation amount Zespri has obtained in a judicial proceeding within China.
Zespri is a globally leading marketer of kiwifruit, wholly owned by New Zealand growers. Zespri’s Gold3 kiwifruit, also known as SunGold, is one of the most commercially valuable fruit varieties developed through 15 years of experimental research and is highly popular worldwide, including in China. In China, Zespri has not only registered a series of “SUNGOLD” trademarks but also secured PVRs. In 2023, Zespri discovered that two growers in China had engaged in unauthorized large-scale cultivation of Gold3 kiwifruit in Yichang, Hubei Province, and were distributing the fruit through online sales channels. Subsequently, Zespri filed a lawsuit with the Wuhan Court.
According to the report, the Wuhan Court determined that the primary defendant’s unauthorized cultivation and sales of Gold3 kiwifruit infringed upon Zespri’s PVRs. The court ordered the deactivation of approximately 260 hectares of infringing propagating materials and awarded Zespri total compensation of RMB5.2462 million (US$725,000), comprising RMB5 million (US$700,000) in punitive damages and RMB 246,200 (US$34,468) in litigation expenses. Additionally, the court found that the secondary defendant’s unauthorized online sales of the fruits of the Gold3 kiwifruit constituted infringement. However, given that the fruits originated from the primary defendant already subject to judgment, the court deemed the PVRs adequately safeguarded through the ruling against the primary defendant.
Zespri’s successful litigation and the award of substantial compensation in this case benefited from the amended Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was revised on 24 December 2021. Article 28 of this Law stipulates, “No unit or individual may, without the permission of the owner of the plant variety rights, produce, propagate, process for propagation, offer for sale, sell, import, export, or store the propagating material of the protected variety for the purpose of carrying out the aforementioned acts, nor may they repeatedly use the propagating material of the protected variety for commercial purposes to produce propagating material of another variety”… “When carrying out the acts specified in the preceding paragraph, if they involve harvested material obtained from the unauthorized use of the propagating material of the protected variety, permission shall be obtained from the owner of the plant variety rights...” Compared to Article 28 of the 2015 Seed Law, this provision extends the protection of PVRs to “harvested material”, the harvested products obtained through cultivation using the propagating material of the protected variety as seeds or propagation sources which are available for commercial transactions; and expands the scope of protection to include acts such as storing, offering for sale, importing, and exporting. Pursuant to this provision, the defendant’s unauthorized planting, selling, offering for sale and promotion through online platforms of Zespri Gold3 Kiwifruit (propagating material) constituted infringement, and their unauthorized sale of Zespri Gold3 Kiwifruit fruits (harvested material) also constituted infringement.
Furthermore, in circumstances where the losses suffered by the right holder, the benefits accrued by the infringer, and the licensing fee for the plant variety right are all difficult to determine, Article 72 of the 2021 Seed Law establishes a statutory maximum compensation amount of RMB5 million (US$700,000), which includes the reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder to enforce their rights and stop the infringement. According to the report, the Wuhan Court awarded damages of RMB5.2462 million (US$34,468). As the court’s judgment in this case has not been publicly disclosed, whether this provision concerning the maximum statutory damages was applied requires further verification.
As outlined above, Zespri has registered a series of “SUNGOLD” trademarks and relevant plant variety rights in China. In recent years, it has consistently pursued intellectual property enforcement actions in China, basing its claims on either the Trademark Law or the Seed Law as appropriate to the specific circumstances. This includes, in November 2024, a joint operation by the Market Supervision Administration of Yangpu District, Shanghai, and public security authorities that investigated and dealt with a case of trademark counterfeiting involving Zhenchuang Convenience Store and four other food business operators. The companies involved were found using counterfeit “Zespri” labels on ordinary fruit to pass them off as genuine Zespri-branded fruit for sale. The infringing fruit and labels were confiscated, and fines were imposed. With the continued refinement of China’s intellectual property laws and regulations, it is believed and hoped that the path for foreign companies to enforce their rights in China will become increasingly smooth.
Zespri is a globally leading marketer of kiwifruit, wholly owned by New Zealand growers. Zespri’s Gold3 kiwifruit, also known as SunGold, is one of the most commercially valuable fruit varieties developed through 15 years of experimental research and is highly popular worldwide, including in China. In China, Zespri has not only registered a series of “SUNGOLD” trademarks but also secured PVRs. In 2023, Zespri discovered that two growers in China had engaged in unauthorized large-scale cultivation of Gold3 kiwifruit in Yichang, Hubei Province, and were distributing the fruit through online sales channels. Subsequently, Zespri filed a lawsuit with the Wuhan Court.
According to the report, the Wuhan Court determined that the primary defendant’s unauthorized cultivation and sales of Gold3 kiwifruit infringed upon Zespri’s PVRs. The court ordered the deactivation of approximately 260 hectares of infringing propagating materials and awarded Zespri total compensation of RMB5.2462 million (US$725,000), comprising RMB5 million (US$700,000) in punitive damages and RMB 246,200 (US$34,468) in litigation expenses. Additionally, the court found that the secondary defendant’s unauthorized online sales of the fruits of the Gold3 kiwifruit constituted infringement. However, given that the fruits originated from the primary defendant already subject to judgment, the court deemed the PVRs adequately safeguarded through the ruling against the primary defendant.
Zespri’s successful litigation and the award of substantial compensation in this case benefited from the amended Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was revised on 24 December 2021. Article 28 of this Law stipulates, “No unit or individual may, without the permission of the owner of the plant variety rights, produce, propagate, process for propagation, offer for sale, sell, import, export, or store the propagating material of the protected variety for the purpose of carrying out the aforementioned acts, nor may they repeatedly use the propagating material of the protected variety for commercial purposes to produce propagating material of another variety”… “When carrying out the acts specified in the preceding paragraph, if they involve harvested material obtained from the unauthorized use of the propagating material of the protected variety, permission shall be obtained from the owner of the plant variety rights...” Compared to Article 28 of the 2015 Seed Law, this provision extends the protection of PVRs to “harvested material”, the harvested products obtained through cultivation using the propagating material of the protected variety as seeds or propagation sources which are available for commercial transactions; and expands the scope of protection to include acts such as storing, offering for sale, importing, and exporting. Pursuant to this provision, the defendant’s unauthorized planting, selling, offering for sale and promotion through online platforms of Zespri Gold3 Kiwifruit (propagating material) constituted infringement, and their unauthorized sale of Zespri Gold3 Kiwifruit fruits (harvested material) also constituted infringement.
Furthermore, in circumstances where the losses suffered by the right holder, the benefits accrued by the infringer, and the licensing fee for the plant variety right are all difficult to determine, Article 72 of the 2021 Seed Law establishes a statutory maximum compensation amount of RMB5 million (US$700,000), which includes the reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder to enforce their rights and stop the infringement. According to the report, the Wuhan Court awarded damages of RMB5.2462 million (US$34,468). As the court’s judgment in this case has not been publicly disclosed, whether this provision concerning the maximum statutory damages was applied requires further verification.
As outlined above, Zespri has registered a series of “SUNGOLD” trademarks and relevant plant variety rights in China. In recent years, it has consistently pursued intellectual property enforcement actions in China, basing its claims on either the Trademark Law or the Seed Law as appropriate to the specific circumstances. This includes, in November 2024, a joint operation by the Market Supervision Administration of Yangpu District, Shanghai, and public security authorities that investigated and dealt with a case of trademark counterfeiting involving Zhenchuang Convenience Store and four other food business operators. The companies involved were found using counterfeit “Zespri” labels on ordinary fruit to pass them off as genuine Zespri-branded fruit for sale. The infringing fruit and labels were confiscated, and fines were imposed. With the continued refinement of China’s intellectual property laws and regulations, it is believed and hoped that the path for foreign companies to enforce their rights in China will become increasingly smooth.