P Protection for a plant variety arises only after the grant of a plant variety protection (pvp) right; therefore, a plant variety registration certificate does not confer exclusive rights. this study examines the pvp status of the servo tomato variety and potential violations of law number 29 of 2000 concerning plant variety protection (pvp law) in relation to the distribution of seeds bearing the identity of servo tomato by third parties outside the official distribution channels of pt east west seed indonesia. this normative legal research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, using secondary data in the form of legal materials and official documents, as well as primary data obtained through interviews with pt east west seed indonesia as supporting data. the data were qualitatively analysed, and conclusions were drawn deductively. the findings demonstrate that servo tomato is not protected by a pvp right because no application for such protection was filed from the outset, while its horticultural variety registration certificate is merely administrative in nature. its status as a hybrid variety does not preclude the granting of a pvp right. however, a current application would no longer satisfy the novelty requirement because the variety has been commercially distributed since 2013. the pvp law normatively provides sufficiently strong protection; therefore, this situation cannot be attributed to weak law enforcement by the center for plant variety protection and agricultural licensing. the unauthorised distribution of seeds by individual sellers through social media and online marketplaces cannot be classified as an infringement of pvp rights because servo tomato does not possess such protection. nevertheless, the unauthorised use of the identity, packaging, and product name of servo tomato constitutes an unlawful act under article 1365 of the indonesian civil code, for which remedies may be pursued through a civil lawsuit seeking damages.