- 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-140/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2010 — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin and Jo Goossens
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0140
62010CN0140
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
19.6.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 161/19
(Case C-140/10)
(2010/C 161/27)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants
Defendants
Questions referred
1.Should Article 94 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 (2) of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to 13(3), 16, 27 and 104 of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, be interpreted in such a way that the holder or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against anyone who effects acts in respect of material which was sold or disposed of to him by a licensee of the right of exploitation if the limitations in the licensing contract between the licensee and the holder of the Community plant variety right that were stipulated to apply in the event of the sale of that material were not respected?
2.If so, is it of significance for the assessment of the infringement that the person effecting the aforementioned act is aware or is deemed to be aware of the limitations thus imposed in the said licensing contract?
(1) OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2004 L 162, p. 38.