Jørn Hansson v Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH.
Date: 2016-06-09
31


On the one hand, the purpose of Article 94(1) of the regulation is that financial compensation should be paid in respect of the benefit which has been gained by the person who committed the infringement, that benefit corresponding to the amount equivalent to the licence fee which that person has failed to pay (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 July 2012 in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:416, paragraph 40). The Court has stated in that regard that Article 94(1) does not provide for reparation for damage other than damage connected to the failure to pay ‘reasonable compensation’ within the meaning of that provision (see judgment of 5 July 2012 in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:416, paragraph 50).
36


In the second place, such an interpretation is consistent with the objectives of Directive 2004/48, which lays down a minimum standard concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights in general.
40


In those circumstances, Article 94 of Regulation No 2100/94 does not permit an infringer to be ordered to pay a flat-rate ‘infringer supplement’, as described by the referring court, since such a supplement does not necessarily reflect the damage suffered by the holder of the variety infringed, although Directive 2004/48 does not prevent the Member States from laying down measures that are more protective.
45


Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 is intended to offset the advantage gained by the person who committed the infringement, which corresponds to the amount equivalent to the licence fee that the infringer has failed to pay the holder (judgment of 5 July 2012 in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:416, paragraph 40).
46


The Court has already held that that provision is intended to make good the loss suffered by the holder of a plant variety who is the victim of an infringement (judgment of 5 July 2012 in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:416, paragraph 36).
47


Accordingly, in order to determine ‘reasonable compensation’ as provided for in Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94, it is appropriate to take as the basis for that calculation an amount equivalent to the fee payable for licensed production (judgment of 5 July 2012 in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:416, paragraph 37).
51


In any event, the Court has stated that Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that it does no more than provide for reasonable compensation in the event of unlawful use of a plant variety, but does not provide for reparation for damage other than damage connected to the failure to pay that compensation, thereby excluding from the amount of the compensation costs incurred for monitoring compliance with the rights of the plant variety holder (see judgment of 5 July 2012 in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:416, paragraphs 50 and 51).
62


As regards out-of-court expenses, related inter alia to the time spent by the victim of the infringement in enforcing his rights, the Court has held that Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 aims to strengthen the level of protection of intellectual property, by avoiding the situation in which an injured party is deterred from bringing legal proceedings in order to protect his rights (see judgment of 16 July 2015 in Diageo Brands, C‑681/13, EU:C:2015:471, paragraph 77).