Kwekersrecht. Beroep tegen weigering tot inschrijving van het plantenras “Oksana”.
Het beroep wordt verworpen. Het ras “Oksana” is niet nieuw in de zin van artikel 10 van de Gemeenschapskwekersrechtverordening. De Kamer van Beroep mocht oordelen dat het kandidaatras en het oudere ras “Nojabrskaja” identiek waren.
Het kandidaatras was voor de aanvraagdatum van het kwekersrecht aan het zogenaamde Dresden-Pillnitz Institute beschikbaar gesteld. Verzoekster heeft niet kunnen bewijzen dat dit enkel voor onderzoeksdoeleinden was en het instituut het ras niet mocht exploiteren (hetgeen de nieuwheid niet zou hebben aangetast).
“102. However, when questioned in this regard under a measure of organisation of the procedure, the applicant stated that it had not been associated with those actions of the breeder and did not provide any specific information concerning the follow-up on those actions. Furthermore, it did not produce any evidence to support the existence of an exclusive right of disposal allegedly held by the breeder over the candidate variety. The applicant merely stated that the breeder had repeatedly declared that it had never authorised the reproduction or sale by third parties of the variety Noiabriskaia. The applicant did, however, produce a letter dated 7 March 2006 that the breeder had sent to it to that effect. However, such a letter is not sufficient to prove the existence of an exclusive right to transfer the candidate variety.
[…]
107 Consequently, the evidence produced by the applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate that the breeder had transferred the candidate variety for research purposes only and cannot give rise to serious doubts as to the legality of the contested decision, within the meaning of the case-law cited above (see paragraph 74 above).”
