- Introduction
- Patents in Europe
- Trade Marks in Europe
- Copyright in Europe
- Design Protection in Europe
- Plant Variety Rights in Europe
- Intellectual Property and Free Movement of Goods
- Intellectual Property and Article 81
- Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures
- Article 81, Distribution and Franchising Agreements
- Abuse of a Dominant Position
- Proceedings involving IPRs and Competition Law
- Enforcement of IPRs and Border Controls
- Jurisdiction and Intellectual Property
Plant Variety Rights in Europe
in
Requirements for Protection
Distinctness
Para 6-034. In T-95/06 FCAVC v CPVO, the CFI dismissed an appeal from the Board of Appeal rejecting an application on the grounds that the variety applied for was not distinct from a reference variety. The applicant alleged a number of defects in the decision which were all dismissed. The CFI emphasised that its ability to interfere with a decision from the Board of Appeal was very much limited to one of judicial review (see para 6-054).
Appeal
para. 6-054. In T-95/06 FCAVC v CPVO, a farming cooperative sought to appeal the grant of a CPVR to a third party. Art.68 of the Implementing Regulation requires that the decision to grant is of direct and individual concern" to the appellant. The CFI took the view that such must be interpreted in the same way that the same words in Art.230 EC Treaty are interpreted (see para. 1-035). It held that such should be interpreted restrictively, in particular because third parties have the right to revoke a CPVR by a direct action before the CPVO.
In T-187/06 Schrader v CPVO, the applicant for a CPVR appealed a decision of the Board of Appeal refusing to grant a CPVR on the grounds that the variety applied for was not distinct from a reference prior art variety. The CFI dismissed the appeal, confirming that the scope for appeal from the CPVO on technical issues such as distinctness, stability, etc is limited because such matters are better carried out by specialists in the field rather than appellate generalist judges.
