CELEX: 62008TN0177
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-177/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)

5.7.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/45
            
         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)
   (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).