In addition to botanical names, at least a dozen distinct categories of nomenclature are applied to plant cultivars, including various forms of cultivar denominations, breeders references, and trade names. Two sets of rules, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (9th ed., 2016), and the Explanatory Notes on Variety Denominations Under the UPOV Convention (2022) provide current guidelines for plant cultivar nomenclature. In some instances UPOV and ICNCP rules differ, and stakeholders may wish to consider whether it would be feasible to seek harmonization, and the mechanisms by which that might be achieved. This session will trace a brief history of cultivar denomination rules for U.S. plant patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, which issues plant patents, does not provide detailed nomenclatural guidelines. In the past two decades a new model for plant nomenclature has prevailed, in which an alphanumeric code serves as the official cultivar denomination, and this is paired with a trademark, either registered or unregistered. The relationship between cultivar denominations and trade names can be complex and fluid. As co-editor of the Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars, the presenter professionally researches all new pomological cultivar denominations and trade names, to avoid publishing names that conflict with previous names or nomenclatural standards. The establishment of an official cultivar denomination has important practical consequences that are sometimes ignored by breeders and rights owners. When a cultivar has been granted a plant patent or plant breeders’ rights, the cultivar denomination recorded by the statutory plant registration authority that issues the grant becomes officially established (a “statutory epithet”), and cannot be casually changed or replaced by the rights owner. When such informal synonyms are used, they are best regarded as trade names, often as unregistered trademarks. Common mistakes and pitfalls in nomenclature are described.
