CELEX: 62016TA0177
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-177/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078)) (New varieties of plants — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) — Designation of another examination office — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons)

18.3.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 103/22
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))
      (Case T-177/16) (1)
      
      ((New varieties of plants - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) - Designation of another examination office - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 103/27)
      Language of the case: German.
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Mema GmbH LG (Terlan, Italy) (represented by B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by M. Ekvad, F. Mattina, O. Lamberti and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)
      
         Re:
      
      Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Orders the CPVO to pay the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.