EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-177/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0177

62008TN0177

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
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

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/45

(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).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia