EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0177
Case T-177/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)
Case T-177/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)
Case T-177/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)
SL C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 45–45
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.7.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/45 |
Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)
(Case T-177/08)
(2008/C 171/85)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)
Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office of 4 December 2007 (Ref. A 005/2007); |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Ralf Schräder.
Community plant variety right at issue:‘Sumost 01’ (Variety application No 2001/1758).
Proprietor of the opposing Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson.
Opposing Community plant variety right:‘Lemon Symphony’.
Decision of the Community Plant Variety Office, appealed against before the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law:
|
— |
Infringement of Article 59(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (1), in that the applicant was not duly summoned to the oral proceedings; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (2), in that the appealed decision was based on grounds and evidence on which the applicant had no opportunity to present his comments; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 81(2) and Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 on account of the alleged partiality of an employee of the defendant, whose evidence was relied on in the decision; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 1239/95, in that no formal decision was issued concerning hearing the oral evidence of an employee of the defendant; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 2100/94 by reason of an insufficient and flawed assessment of the facts as regards distinctiveness; |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 on account of alleged partiality on the part of one of the members of the Board of Appeal. |
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).