Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009CA0038

Case C-38/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (Appeal — The Court’s power of review — Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 — Agriculture — Community plant variety rights — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Variety a matter of common knowledge — Proof — Plant variety SUMCOL 01)

SL C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.6.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/9


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

(Case C-38/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - The Court’s power of review - Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 - Agriculture - Community plant variety rights - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Variety a matter of common knowledge - Proof - Plant variety SUMCOL 01)

2010/C 148/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and B. Kiewiet, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2008 in Case T-187/06 Schräder v CPVO, by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 2 May 2006 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the CPVO concerning the rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the plant variety ‘SUMCOL 01’ — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Factors which can be taken into consideration in order to determine whether a variety is a matter of common knowledge — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

2.

Orders Mr Schräder to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.


Top