I have a shrub labeled Cornus sanguinea Arctic Sun 'Cato' and am a bit confused. There is both a yellowtwig and bloodtwig entry in the database with the trademark of Arctic Sun. The general notes on my shrub indicated it would have rich yellow stems with blood red tips and bright green foliage, which it does. Do you suppose there are two separate cultivars of this shrub -- one predominantly yellow and the other red? Or should they be combined to one entry? Neither has a photo attached. I would like to add it to my ATP list and may have a photo to contribute, although the shrub is fairly young so I may not yet have gotten a good shot of it. I assume the 'Cato' is either a specific cultivar or perhaps a sub-something.

Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea Arctic Sun™)


Similarly, there are two entries for Arctic Fire, which has a much redder stem. Those may want to be combined as well?

I'll look into this, Deb. It's likely that Arctic Sun is the trade name and Cato is the cultivar name. Arctic Fire probably is also a trademarked trade name.

It seems as though Arctic Sun is a trade name.

Arctic Sun™ Cornus sanguinea 'Cato' PP: 19892 Can. PBRAF

http://www.provenwinners.com/p...
http://www.missouribotanicalga...

We cross posted Zuzu.

Thanks for finding that, Deb. I've deleted the duplicates, which were the ones without a trademark in the name. Arctic Fire also had the wrong species name, so I've corrected that.

Thanks for doing the research, Lynn.

What exactly is a trademark, and how does that differ from a cultivar? And, what is the proper order to include a trademark? I noted in the link it was listed first, which would throw off the alpha order in any sort of list. ?? Thanks, learning something new all the time.

Waiting to hear the answer to Bev's above question. : )

A trade name is a trademarked cultivar name and should be followed by a trademark or copyright symbol. The actual cultivar name for a trade name rarely makes as much sense as "Cato." It's usually just a series of letters and/or numbers used by the hybridizer or company to keep track of the plant before it acquires the trade name. The trade name is the one we want displayed in an alphabetical list of the genus cultivars. The plant isn't sold as Cato and isn't known by that name, so it's not the name chosen for the alphabetical display.

I just merged some other entries in the Cornus database. We had entries for Rutban, Rutcan, Rutfan, etc. They were the cultivar names for the trade names Aurora®, Constellation®, Stardust®, etc. I added the "Rut" names to the trade names and deleted the "Rut" entries.

Thank you for the clarification. I guess my next question is: what is the purpose of trademarking a cultivar name? Does it better protect the plant hybridizer from someone replicating their work? Does this then become a plant that is not allowed to be propagated? How does anyone keep track of that? (I'm not a propagator so not interested in pirating anything, just curious.)

I'm not sure I know the answers to all of these questions, but I think a trademarked name only protects the name. The trade mark or copyright precludes someone else's use of the same name for a different cultivar. Patenting is what protects the hybridizer against propagation by another commercial entity. Patented plants don't necessarily have a trademarked name.

Keeping track is sometimes a simple matter and sometimes more complex. In the rose market, grafted patented roses are sold with a metal tag, issued by the patent holder to the grower. The grower pays royalties to the patent holder for each metal tag issued and is forbidden to sell anything without a metal tag. Own-root patented roses are a different matter and less simple to control. There are no metal tags involved, and the grower pays royalties on the honor system, leaving considerable room for patent abuse.

That all makes sense to me. So, for example, since Arctic Sun has been trademarked for the Cornus species, there cannot be a future daylily or rose also called Arctic Sun? On the other hand, if a daylily cultivar is untrademarked 'Lonesome Dove,' an iris could also use that same cultivar? When searching by cultivar, I often notice that a specific name might be used for several different plants.

I have also noticed that occasionally I will buy a plant which includes some language on the tag that it is not allowed to be propagated, and I assume these must be copyrighted cultivars. I further assume this means one can't propagate for sale, but certainly one can divide or take cuttings from the plant for one's own use? Or perhaps that is simply my wishful interpretation of that warning...

Plant politics...as slippery as real politics...!

No, the name can be used for a daylily or rose. It only means that Arctic Sun can't be used as the name for another Cornus cultivar. These trademarks don't apply to other genera.

The language against propagation means that the plant is patented, not copyrighted.

Your broad interpretation of the propagation ban probably is the correct one. At any rate, it's the one most people seem to accept. Even though there are no propagation police keeping you under surveillance, you should propagate patented plants only for your own use. You can't sell them or even give them to someone else for free.

>> some language on the tag that it is not allowed to be propagated, and I assume these must be copyrighted cultivars. I further assume this means one can't propagate for sale, but certainly one can divide or take cuttings from the plant for one's own use?

This came up on another website, and there was agreement that some forms of protection forbid ANY asexual propagation, even in your own garden for your own use, or for giving away for free. Thus it is technically illegal, but unenforceable. And very widely done. You might try sending an emAil to the breeder or patent holder, and asking to buy a few metal tags for a few dollars each, but they would probably tell you to go ahead as long as you keep the numbers reasonable.

I think that is "propagation prohibited" meaning "asexual propagation prohibited".
Is that the exact same thing as "patented"? I'm not sure.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...

You can always collect hybrid F2 seeds from a plant that is "asexual propagation prohibited" because seeds are sexual propagation. They just won't come true 100%. And you breed with pollen from that plant, or cross-pollinate that plant with something else. That's all sexual propagation, and doesn't produce the exact same plant.

Is there a kind of protection that forbids collecting or selling seeds? I think so, such as Monsanto has in force. But I can't find that old thread or my notes.

But the Plant Police don't often descend on private gardens and take DNA samples. In fact, I've read that usually the only enforcement mechanism is that the breeder can sue people if he can find evidence without trespassing.

I never understood who would sue who when a protected plant sends out runners and propagates itself.

P.S. Here is a list of different methods of asexual propagation. They all produce clones and they are all prohibited the same way:
Rooting Cuttings
Apomictic Seeds
Division
Layering
Runners
Tissue Culture
Grafting and Budding
Bulbs
Slips
Rhizomes
Corms
Nucellar Embryos

I will just continue to divide my plants as needed and deal with the Plant Police if and when they show up...