Fruit trees in Gansu were forcibly cut down and destroyed recently, their trunks reduced to stumps. The orchards had been growing Scilate apples—the variety marketed globally as ENVY®—without permission.
The destruction followed a Supreme People’s Court ruling on 31 December 2025 that upheld significant damages against a Chinese defendant who illegally propagated and sold the premium apple variety. ENZAFruit New Zealand International Limited, a subsidiary of T&G Global, had sued to protect its plant variety rights in Shandong province, China’s primary apple-growing region.
The court rejected the defendant’s defences entirely.
What made this case particularly significant was the forensic method that sealed the verdict. DNA testing on harvested fruit—not just propagating materials—proved the infringement. The Supreme People’s Court confirmed that cell nuclei in apple fruit and leaves contain testable DNA, making harvested materials valid evidence under China’s Technical Code for Apple Variety Identification using the SSR Molecular Marker Method.
That ruling makes life considerably harder for counterfeiters. Rights holders can now collect evidence from fruit at market stalls or in warehouses, rather than needing access to nurseries or orchards where propagating materials are held. The court explicitly stated this approach “can greatly enhance the convenience for right holders in collecting evidence.”
The defendant had been producing and propagating Scilate materials, then selling the harvested apples through online and offline channels. Though using a different product name, the operation deliberately deployed marks similar to T&G’s registered ENVY® trademark during promotion—an attempt, the court found, to exploit Scilate’s commercial reputation for unlawful profit.
The Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court had issued its initial decision in April 2025. By year’s end, China’s highest court affirmed that ruling. The defendant must now pay substantial damages to ENZAFruit, cease all production and propagation of Scilate materials, stop selling harvested fruit obtained from illegal propagation, and destroy remaining illegal propagating stock.
This marks the second time Lusheng—Rouse’s strategic partner in China—has secured a Supreme People’s Court victory for ENZAFruit. Two wins at the apex of China’s judicial system establish precedent that lower courts across the country will follow when handling similar plant variety disputes.
The court’s reasoning went beyond the immediate case. It rejected the defendant’s “legal source” defence and ruled that infringement must be assessed holistically—producing propagating materials and selling harvested fruit should be evaluated as interconnected acts, not isolated transactions. That interpretation closes a loophole some infringers had exploited by claiming they legitimately sourced materials, even when selling knowingly pirated varieties.
“We welcome this ruling by the Supreme People’s Court and the commitment it shows under China’s strengthened Seed Law to safeguard plant variety rights and put a stop to illegitimate production and infringement,” Gareth Edgecombe, Chief Executive at T&G, said. “With it being the second ruling in T&G’s favour by China’s highest court, it establishes a strong judicial precedent for the handling of similar infringement disputes in China. The Court’s judgement and the recent Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties will benefit plant breeders, growers, consumers, customers and the horticulture sector, and provide T&G with further confidence to continue investing in China, knowing our intellectual property is well protected.”
The timing of enforcement actions in Gansu—where orchards were physically destroyed—underscores how seriously Chinese authorities now treat agricultural intellectual property violations. Premium apple varieties command substantial price premiums in Chinese markets. ENVY® apples, developed in New Zealand, have built a reputation for distinctive flavour and appearance that counterfeiters sought to exploit.
Sunny Su, a Principal at Lusheng, framed the decision as a watershed for agricultural brands operating in China. “The Supreme People’s Court’s ruling marks a pivotal moment for local and foreign agricultural brands, as it demonstrates the effectiveness of the revised Seed Law and provides confidence to businesses that their rights are supported by Chinese lawmakers,” Su said. “It also serves as a strong warning to the industry to strictly operate in accordance with the law. Intellectual property rights are being taken extremely seriously, and those found propagating, harvesting or selling unlawful goods will be prosecuted. Recently, a large number of illegally infringing Scilate variety fruit trees in Gansu were forcibly cut and destroyed, effectively enforcing court rulings and protecting the rights of all parties as well as social fairness and justice.”
China revised its Seed Law specifically to strengthen protections for plant breeders. The law now extends liability from illegal propagating materials to harvested materials obtained from illegal propagation—a critical expansion that makes enforcement viable at multiple points in the supply chain.
Liping, the senior litigator handling the case, explained the practical implications. “Infringements involving PVRs are increasingly covert, and harvested materials are an important clue for rights holders to trace the source of infringement,” Liping said. “Since the revision of the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judicial and law enforcement authorities have made many representative penalty decisions and judgments against infringements related to the illegal harvesting of materials, extending liability from illegal propagating materials to harvested materials obtained from illegal propagation.”
The decision carries weight beyond apples. International agricultural companies have long viewed China as both a massive market opportunity and an intellectual property minefield. Plant varieties take years and substantial investment to develop—ENVY® apples emerged from breeding programmes that carefully selected for taste, texture, colour, and storage characteristics. When counterfeiters propagate protected varieties without licensing agreements, they undermine the economics that fund future breeding work.
For T&G Global, which depends on premium variety development as a core business strategy, the ruling validates its approach to the Chinese market. The company has invested in building legitimate distribution channels and licensing arrangements in China, betting that strengthened legal protections would eventually make piracy less viable than partnership.
Whether this ruling stems the flow of counterfeit premium apples remains to be seen. Shandong province alone produces millions of tonnes of apples annually, and monitoring propagation across thousands of small orchards presents enormous practical challenges. Yet the combination of DNA testing as admissible evidence, expanded liability to harvested materials, and demonstrated willingness to physically destroy illegal orchards shifts the risk calculus for would-be infringers.
The Supreme People’s Court has now twice backed ENZAFruit’s claims. Lower courts across China’s apple-growing regions will take notice when weighing similar cases. And orchardists in Shandong, Gansu, and neighbouring provinces now know that planting protected varieties without authorisation carries consequences that extend beyond fines to the destruction of their trees.
For plant breeders worldwide, the message from Beijing is clear: China’s judicial system will enforce variety rights with the same rigour it applies to patents and trademarks. The days when agricultural intellectual property occupied a grey zone in Chinese law appear to be ending.
By New Year’s Day 2026, the precedent was set.
