IPPT20100415, CJEU, Schrader v CBP

Print this page 15-04-2010
IPPT20100415, CJEU, Schrader v CBP

PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS


A species is composed of its different varieties:
• No contradiction can arise from the mere fact that, as Mr Schräder contends, the General Court incorrectly implied that Mr Codd described a variety of Plectranthus ornatus in his publications instead of the corresponding species. As the Advocate General pointed out in point 67 of his Opinion, the very nature of a ‘species’ is that it is composed of its different varieties and, for this reason, a detailed description of such a species cannot be detached from the varieties which it comprises.


LITIGATION


Limited review to determine variety lacking distinctness:
• The General Court, (…), was not required to carry out a complete review in order to determine whether or not the SUMCOL 01 variety lacked dis-tinctness for the purposes of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 but that it was entitled, in the light of the scientific and technical complexity of that condition, compliance with which must be veri-fied by means of a technical examination which, as is clear from Article 55 of Regulation No 2100/94, is to be entrusted by the CPVO to one of the compe-tent national offices, to limit itself to a review of manifest errors of assessment.

 

IPPT20100415, CJEU, Schräder v CBP