- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-509/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH (Intellectual and industrial property — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — ‘Farmer’s privilege’ — Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ — Compensation for damage suffered — Infringement)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CA0509
62010CA0509
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
22.9.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 287/3
(Case C-509/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Intellectual and industrial property - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - ‘Farmer’s privilege’ - Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ - Compensation for damage suffered - Infringement)
2012/C 287/05
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck
Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 14(3) and Article 94(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) and of Articles 5 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14) — Community plant variety rights — Infringement — Obligation to pay the holder of such rights reasonable compensation and to compensate him for damage — Criteria for determining the damage and reasonable compensation
Operative part of the judgment
1.In order to determine the ‘reasonable compensation’ payable, under Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, by a farmer who has used the propagating material of a protected variety obtained through planting and has not fulfilled his obligations under Article 14(3) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998, it is appropriate to base the calculation on the amount of the fee payable for the licensed production of propagating material of protected varieties of the plant species concerned in the same area.
2.The payment of compensation for costs incurred for monitoring compliance with the rights of the plant variety holder cannot enter into the calculation of the ‘reasonable compensation’ provided for under Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.