Holy basil is closely associated with everyday life and food culture in Thailand. Reports that a major private company has obtained protection for holy basil varieties have therefore generated extensive debate. Questions range from whether members of the public may continue to grow holy basil and the extent to which farmers may retain seeds for replanting, to the appropriateness of granting a private entity exclusive rights in plant varieties developed from the country’s indigenous resources.
This debate reflects the relationship between promoting agricultural innovation, protecting farmers’ rights and allocating benefits derived from biological resources. These issues require a comprehensive examination of the legal framework. Expressions such as “patenting holy basil” or “private ownership of holy basil”, without distinguishing the type of right and the scope of protection, may mislead the public as to the legal consequences.
The case of CPRAM Co., Ltd. is therefore a significant case study for agribusinesses, the food industry, research institutions and policymakers. In particular, it raises questions about how the law should reward investment in plant breeding while preserving opportunities for farmers and the public to use plant resources.
1. Distinguishing Protection of Specific Varieties from Rights over Holy Basil Generally
The Department of Agriculture’s registration records identify CPRAM Co., Ltd. as the holder of rights in four Kaew Juree holy basil varieties: Kaew Juree 01, Kaew Juree 02, Kaew Juree 03 and Kaew Juree 04. These varieties were registered in 2024, with protection extending to 2036. The reported issue therefore concerns rights in specific registered plant varieties, rather than rights over every variety of holy basil in Thailand.
The Department of Agriculture’s published application documents also describe the breeding process using the indigenous holy basil variety designated CPR1. For example, the documents for Kaew Juree 02 refer to induced chromosome-set multiplication and culture under sterile conditions. Such information is important to understanding the breeding work for which protection is sought and the source of the original plant material.
However, the identification of a rights holder in the register and an assessment of whether the process of obtaining those rights was complete are separate matters. The latter requires examination of the application documents, variety examination results, breeding history and documents concerning access to genetic resources. It cannot be determined from the variety name or the rights holder’s name alone.
2. Is the Term Plant Variety Patent Accurate under Thai Law
Under Thai law, protection under the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and protection under the Plant Varieties Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) operate under separate legal regimes. Section 9(1) of the Patent Act excludes plants from patent protection. Protection of a new plant variety itself must therefore be considered specifically under plant varieties protection legislation.
This distinction is more than a matter of terminology. Each regime defines different subject matter, eligibility requirements, terms of protection and exceptions. Describing the Kaew Juree case as “patenting holy basil” may lead to explanations of the scope of rights based on legal principles that do not correspond to the rights actually granted.
For legal communications, the expression “registration for protection of a new plant variety” should therefore be used, and the company named in the register should be described as the “holder of rights in the new plant variety”. This ensures that the discussion proceeds on a consistent legal basis.
Care is also required when using the expression “plant variety registration” interchangeably with registration for protection of a new plant variety without examining the documents. The Department of Agriculture’s website distinguishes certificates for listed plant varieties from certificates of registration of new plant varieties. Verifying the type of registration is therefore a fundamental step before concluding whether a person holds exclusive statutory rights.
3. How the Law Protects Plant Breeding Achievements
The central principle of the new plant variety protection system is to encourage investment in plant breeding by granting economic rights to persons entitled under the law, within a defined scope and for a specified period.
Developing a plant variety may require funding, personnel, laboratories, field trials and several years of work. Research may increase yields, improve quality or give raw materials characteristics suitable for processing. Plant variety rights thus help investors manage the returns from these achievements.
Research investment alone, however, does not establish that a variety qualifies for protection. The applicant must also demonstrate that the variety satisfies the statutory requirements, including novelty, distinctness from existing varieties and the relevant prescribed varietal characteristics. Assessment therefore requires technical information alongside legal examination.
Where a new variety is developed from an indigenous variety, the legal issues encompass both the eligibility of the new variety and the legality of access to the original plant material. Compliance with one set of requirements should not replace examination of the other.
4. The Scope of Rights under Section 33 and the Importance of Propagating Material
Section 33 of the Plant Varieties Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) grants the rights holder exclusive rights to produce, sell, distribute, import, export or possess for those purposes the propagating material of a new plant variety, subject to the statutory exceptions.
The significance of this provision is that an infringement analysis must begin with at least three questions: whether the plant concerned is in fact a protected variety; whether the material used is propagating material and how it is used; and whether the activity falls within the exclusive rights or a statutory exception.
In practice, seeds, seedlings and cuttings used for propagation may fall within rights relating to propagating material, whereas using holy basil leaves in cooking serves a different purpose. The analysis should therefore consider the condition of the material sold, the purpose and the circumstances of its use, rather than the product name alone.
Accordingly, the statement “selling holy basil is prohibited” is too broad to reflect the statutory framework accurately. Equally, the statement “once a variety has been purchased, it may be propagated for sale in any manner” may overlook the rights holder’s rights and the applicable conditions.
Following registration, the principal scope of rights is as follows.
1. Control over the use of propagating material of the registered variety
Section 33 gives the rights holder exclusive rights to produce, sell, distribute, import, export or possess for those purposes the propagating material of the variety, such as seeds, cuttings or plants used for propagation, subject to the statutory exceptions. Accordingly, using our variety to raise plants from seed or cuttings for sale as planting material without permission may constitute infringement.
2. Licensing to others and receiving remuneration
We may authorise other operators to produce or distribute the variety in return for agreed remuneration or royalties, and may transfer the rights to another person. However, licences and transfers must be made in writing and registered with the competent official under Section 32.
3. A 12-year term of protection for holy basil
Holy basil falls within the category of plants that yield produce according to their varietal characteristics within no more than two years. Under Section 31, it therefore receives protection for 12 years from the date on which the registration certificate is issued. The rights holder must also pay the statutory annual fees.
4. The rights do not cover every use of holy basil
Use as propagating material must be distinguished from use as produce for consumption, for example as follows.
| Activity | General scope of protection |
| Growing plants from seed or cuttings of the registered variety for sale as planting material | Within the scope of rights; permission and exceptions must be considered |
| Harvesting leaves for sale to restaurants or use in food sold to customers | Generally falls within the exception for use without the purpose of propagation |
| Growing or using the plant for non-commercial purposes | Subject to statutory exceptions |
| Research to improve or develop varieties | Subject to statutory exceptions |
| Growing or selling other holy basil varieties outside our rights | Our registration does not cover those other varieties |
Section 33 also provides an exception for farmers using propagating material that they have produced themselves, subject to the statutory conditions. Retaining seeds for replanting therefore cannot be treated as infringement in every case.
5. Legal action against infringers
A person who, without permission, carries out an act falling within the exclusive rights and outside the exceptions may commit an offence under Section 64, punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to THB 400,000, or both.
The principal commercial benefit is therefore that we can control the production and trade of propagating material of the registered holy basil variety and license operators in return for remuneration. Registration does not, however, give us a monopoly over all holy basil varieties or allow us to prohibit all sales of holy basil leaves for consumption.
5. Implications for the Public Restaurants and Fresh Vegetable Traders
Registration of four new holy basil varieties does not automatically bring other holy basil varieties within the company’s rights. Government agencies have clarified that protection applies only to the newly developed varieties and does not extend to all holy basil varieties grown and used by the public.
Growers of ordinary holy basil varieties, fresh vegetable traders and restaurants should therefore not be led to believe that they must obtain a private company’s permission before growing, trading or using holy basil in cooking merely because of reports concerning registration of the Kaew Juree varieties.
Even for produce from the protected varieties, use for consumption must still be distinguished from use as propagating material. Protection does not result in royalties being payable on every dish containing the plant. Government clarifications state that the law does not prohibit eating or distributing produce for consumption. Activities involving propagating material, particularly commercial production and distribution, must nevertheless be assessed against the statutory rights and conditions.
Clarity on this point helps reduce consumer anxiety while enabling seed and seedling businesses to recognise that their activities may raise legal issues different from those affecting food businesses.
6. Farmers’ Rights to Retain Propagating Material for Replanting
One of the most sensitive issues is the right of farmers to retain seeds or propagating material from their own harvest for use in the next growing season.
The current law contains an exception under Section 33 for cultivation or propagation by farmers using propagating material that they have produced themselves, subject to the statutory conditions and limitations. It is therefore incorrect to state that registration deprives farmers of the right to retain seeds for replanting in every case.
Nevertheless, this exception should not be interpreted as a general authorisation to operate a business producing and selling propagating material of a protected variety without checking the relevant rights. Retaining propagating material for further cultivation and establishing a nursery or seed production business for sale are activities requiring separate consideration.
Farmers participating in cultivation promotion programmes or contract farming arrangements should also examine the relevant documents to determine how they address sources of planting material, use of propagating material, purchase of produce and the parties’ liabilities. The effect of contractual provisions must be assessed together with the statutory provisions and the facts of each case.
From a contract drafting perspective, clarity at the outset is more effective in reducing disputes than broadly worded prohibitions that do not explain whether they derive from statutory rights, commercial agreements or particular programme conditions.
7. Access to Indigenous Varieties and Benefit Sharing Obligations
Developing new varieties from indigenous resources raises a further question: how may developers access those resources, and will the resulting benefits be appropriately shared?
Section 52 requires a person who collects, procures or gathers general domestic plant varieties, wild plant varieties or any part thereof for breeding, study, experimentation or research for commercial purposes to obtain permission from the competent official and enter into a benefit sharing agreement in accordance with the prescribed rules.
This provision reflects the importance Thai law attaches both to research achievements and to the resources used to create them. The grant of rights in a new variety should therefore be considered alongside the source of the original plant material and the applicable benefit sharing obligations where the statutory conditions are met.
For due diligence purposes, the documents to be examined should include records of the source, date and method of acquisition of the original plant material, the project’s objectives, permits and benefit sharing agreements. Their consistency with the information in the registration application should also be reviewed.
In the CPRAM case, questions concerning these documents are legally verifiable matters. They should not, however, lead to conclusions that the company or its research partners have acted unlawfully without sufficient evidence. A determination requires full consideration of the relevant facts and documents.
8. Ownership of Rights in Research Collaborations between Private Companies and Universities
Collaboration between private companies and universities is an important means of bringing knowledge into commercial use. It nevertheless requires clear allocation of rights and benefits.
Research agreements should distinguish at least three matters: the status of the creator or breeder; entitlement to apply for protection; and entitlement to remuneration from commercial exploitation. The persons or organisations involved in each matter may not all be the same.
An assessment of whether it is appropriate for a private company to hold the rights should therefore begin with the research funding agreement, joint development agreement, funding conditions, institutional regulations and documents concerning the transfer or allocation of rights, together with the relevant obligations under plant varieties protection legislation.
For future projects, the parties should clearly specify who must obtain permission to access the original plant material, who is responsible for filing the registration application, who bears the costs and how licensing revenue will be allocated. They should also define the scope for using the research results for education and further research.
Putting these agreements in place at the start of a project helps both universities and private companies manage expectations and explain publicly the rationale and conditions underlying the allocation of rights.
9. Exclusive Rights and Concerns over Market Monopolisation
Protection of a new plant variety creates exclusive rights within the statutory scope. Whether the rights holder has monopoly power in a market, however, is an economic and competition law question requiring further analysis.
A market assessment should consider the extent to which other varieties are substitutes, whether farmers can access alternative varieties, the rights holder’s bargaining power in relation to growers and purchasers, and how licensing or produce purchasing conditions affect competition.
Holding rights in four holy basil varieties alone is therefore insufficient to conclude that the company controls the entire holy basil market. At the same time, the present availability of alternative varieties does not remove the need to monitor long-term effects on competition.
For businesses, variety licensing conditions should relate to the objective of protecting the breeding achievement and the relevant commercial circumstances. Measures affecting access to varieties, sales of produce or farmers’ choice of trading partners should undergo appropriate legal assessment before implementation.
10. Practical Recommendations for Stakeholders
This case illustrates that managing plant variety rights requires more than obtaining registration. Breeders and rights holders should systematically retain evidence of the source of original plant material, breeding history, permits and benefit sharing agreements, and communicate the scope of their rights consistently with the registration and the law. Statements suggesting that a company holds rights over every variety of a plant may create disputes and undermine confidence.
Farmers and suppliers of planting material should verify variety names and sources, retain purchase, sale or acquisition records, and distinguish sales of produce for consumption from production of propagating material for sale. If they receive an infringement allegation, they should examine the evidence identifying the variety, the scope of rights and the activities alleged before accepting liability.
Universities and research institutions should establish procedures to review access to genetic resources and the allocation of rights before a project begins. They should also clearly define the respective responsibilities of funders, researchers and institutions.
For regulators, making registration information and explanations of rights readily accessible to the public would help reduce misunderstanding. Such information should distinguish the protected varieties, the term of protection, the activities covered by the rights and the statutory exceptions.
11. Trinity & Co. Legal’s Perspective
The Kaew Juree holy basil case highlights a central issue for intellectual property law in agriculture: how can investment in plant breeding generate economic benefits while maintaining fairness for resource users and producers throughout the supply chain?
In Trinity & Co. Legal’s view, three aspects should be considered together: the completeness of the process by which rights are obtained; the proper exercise of rights following registration; and the appropriateness of allocating benefits derived from resources and research collaboration.
Breeders should receive protection for their achievements on the conditions recognised by law. Farmers should be able to exercise their rights and rely on statutory exceptions in practice. The public should receive sufficient information to scrutinise the scope of the rights granted.
The credibility of the plant variety protection system therefore depends on the quality of examination, transparency of information and responsible exercise of rights. When these elements operate together, new plant variety protection can support research and business growth while safeguarding farmers’ interests and the country’s biological resources.
This article provides general legal information and analysis. Any assessment of the legality of a particular registration or the use of a particular plant variety requires consideration of the registration documents, facts and laws applicable to that case.
This article provides general legal information and analysis. Any assessment of the legality of a particular registration or the use of a particular plant variety requires consideration of the registration documents, facts and laws applicable to that case. It is not intended to criticise any person in a manner that causes harm. All rights are reserved under the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994).
Information as at 26 October 2026
BY: Pinprapus Chartikavanich
TRINITY & CO LEGAL
