62. Any infringement of the rights of the owner of a plant breed certificate, as defined
by Article 16 of this Law, shall constitute counterfeiting incurring the civil liability of the
infringer.
The owner of a compulsory or ex officio license referred to in Articles 21, 26 or 28 of
this Law, and, unless stipulated otherwise, the beneficiary of an exclusive right of use may
take the legal action relating to liability provided for in the first paragraph above if, after
having been served formal notice, the owner of the certificate fails to take such action.
The owner of the certificate shall be entitled to participate in the action for liability
brought by the licensee in accordance with the previous paragraph.
Any holder of a license shall be entitled to intervene in the proceedings brought by the
owner of the certificate for the purpose of receiving compensation for the harm which he has
personally undergone.
63. Events prior to the publication of the grant of the certificate shall not be considered
to have infringed the rights deriving from the certificate. However, once the presumed
infringer has received notification, by means of a certified true copy, of the application for the
certificates, events subsequent thereto may be evidenced and prosecuted.
64. The owner of an application for a plant breed certificate or a certificate may have
made, with the authorization of the court, a detailed description, with or without seizure, of all
plants or parts of plants and all propagating or plant propagating elements allegedly obtained
through disregard for his rights. This possibility shall be open to the holder of an exclusive
license for use or to the beneficiary of a compulsory or ex officio license under the conditions
fixed in the second paragraph of Article 62 above.
Where the applicant fails to bring proceedings before the court within 15 days following
the day on which the seizure or the description occurred, the description or seizure shall be
null as of right, without prejudice to any damages which might be claimed, where applicable.
65. The detailed description, with or without the seizure of the plants, parts of plants, or
all propagating or plant propagating elements for the allegedly infringing variety, provided for
by Article 64 above, shall be ordered by the president of the competent court under whose
jurisdiction the operations must be conducted.
The order shall be granted upon request and subject to the production of either the plant
breed certificate or, in the case provided for in Article 63 of this Law, a certified true copy of
the application for the plant breed certificate.
Where the request is submitted by the holder of an exclusive right of use or by the
beneficiary of a compulsory or ex officio license referred to in Articles 21, 26 or 28 of this
Law, the applicant must prove that the owner of the plant breed certificate failed to take action
after having been served formal notice to do so.
66. Where seizure is ordered, the judge may impose on the requestor a security which
the requestor shall be obliged to pay before the undertaking of the seizure. The notarial
officer shall, before conducting the seizure, on pain of invalidation of the measure and the
award of damages against him, hand a copy of the writ to the holders of the plants, parts of
plants or propagating or plant propagating elements of the variety considered, and, where
applicable, of the document evidencing the provision of security. A copy of the record of the
seizure shall likewise be handed to them.
67. The court may, at the request of the aggrieved party and provided that the measure
is necessary to ensure the prohibition on continuing the infringement, find in favor of the
party with a view to transferring to him ownership, the seizure of plants or parts of plants, and