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
C series
—
13.5.2024
(C/2024/3083)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) (South Perth, Australia) (represented by: T. Bouvet and C. Devinant, lawyers)
Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teak Enterprises Pty Limited (Applecross, Australia)
Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Applicant before the General Court
Community plant variety right at issue: Cripps Pink and Cripps Red apple varieties - Community plant variety rights No 1640 and No 3425
Procedure before CPVO: Nullity proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 12 January 2024 in joined cases A 019/2021 and A 020/2021
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul and set aside the contested decision;
—alter the contested decision and hold that the CPVO rightfully:
—considered that the conditions laid down to open nullity proceedings are not met;
—decided not to declare the Cripps Pink and Cripps Red varieties null and void;
—order Teak Enterprises Pty Limited to bear the costs and expenses of the proceedings.
—Infringement of Article 53a of Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 874/2009, together with Article 266 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty and the provisions regarding the burden of proof;
—Infringement of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 in combination with Article 53a of Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 and the provisions regarding the burden of proof.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3083/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—