Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62010CN0140

Case C-140/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin and Jo Goossens

OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.6.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin and Jo Goossens

(Case C-140/10)

(2010/C 161/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants

:

Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV

Defendants

:

 

Jean Hustin

 

Jo Goossens

Questions referred

1.

Should Article 94 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 (2) of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to 13(3), 16, 27 and 104 of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, be interpreted in such a way that the holder or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against anyone who effects acts in respect of material which was sold or disposed of to him by a licensee of the right of exploitation if the limitations in the licensing contract between the licensee and the holder of the Community plant variety right that were stipulated to apply in the event of the sale of that material were not respected?

2.

If so, is it of significance for the assessment of the infringement that the person effecting the aforementioned act is aware or is deemed to be aware of the limitations thus imposed in the said licensing contract?

(1)  OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 162, p. 38.

Top