This means that the plant is patented, and as such, cannot be legally vegetatively propagated and sold without arrangement with those that hold the patent.

They're just uptight prudes.

I'm afraid we're going to see more of this in the future. Whenever a money making trend is identified the originators want their cut. If this means patenting, they will.
Might as well get used to it.

Sheesh! Patenting plants is nothing new. The process protects the developer from others profiting from others plants.

The prohibition is if you are going to sell -- commercially; retail; or via a plant sale (such as backyard or garden club.

A homegardener can propagate for his/her own use in his/her own garden.

Patenting is not an evil being foisted on the world by greedy plant growers. How would you like to spend 15 years making crosses that finally turn up one very unique plant only to have the big wholesaler across the street, who has the facility to do large scale propagation, take your hard work and make all the profit?

jb
PS Though I reserve the right to agree with Eric if that turns out to be the case.

Actually, this is a Monrovia plant, so the big wholesaler across the street already has it, but maybe they bought it from the little guy who spent 15 years developing it. How hard is it asexually reproduce Nandina?

In some cases, growers apply trademark names to plants that already have cultivar names, and then 'hide' the real cultivar name by printing it really small on the tag (if at all). This is disingenuous for one thing because it just adds confusion to plant names. Then they say you can't propagate it, but I don't see how they have the right to do that; they can only prevent you from marketing it under their trademark name, not its actual name.

"Then they say you can't propagate it, but I don't see how they have the right to do that; they can only prevent you from marketing it under their trademark name, not its actual name."

And that's one way to be unprofessional.

Further, it confuses the marketplace with look-a-like plants which really are the same thing.

But it's legal for other growers to propagate Monrovia's (and other developer's) patented plants the legal way. All they need do is obtain propagation rights for a fee.

For more on this topic...

Here is a link that might be useful: Plant Delights Nursery -- The Trademark Myth

That said, when it comes to plants, trademarked is different than patented.

Yes, it is.... but I have seen 'propagation prohibited' for non-patented cultivars with trademark names. That is where I think, where do they get off?

Read the above essay. Various elements are at play.

Just another way capitalism (supposedly this great engine of innovation) stifles creativity and innovation.

Actually, it is quite the opposite! Being assured that one's creative efforts in the breeding of new and different plant varieties will be financially compensated by a temporary patent tends to encourage creativity and innovation. Under a patent, one can be assured that their life's work is not going to be dispersed to the general public free of charge or with zero monetary reward to the creator/breeder/hybridizer.

Was it really necessary to come back 15 years later to make this rather specious comment?