The Gravenhage Court of Appeal considers that although the licensor could not compel the licensee to comply with contractual provisions that were void under article 81 EC, the licensor was however not precluded from terminating the agreement according to the terms of the latter (Dekker / Sunfield)

Dekker is active in the market for the improvement of chrysanthemum species and owns the cultivation rights of certain species. Its market share is estimated at 25% of the Dutch market. Sunfield is active in the breeding of chrysanthemum species and sells cultivation material to cultivators. Its market share of the Dutch market amounts to 20-22 %. Since 1991, Dekker granted successive licenses to Sunfield for the breeding of chrysanthemum species for the purpose of marketing of cuttings and end-products, according to unlimited non-exclusive licensing agreements. In 2001, Dekker introduced a new licensing policy according to which licensees had the right to breed a certain number of plants determined in accordance with the amount which could be purchased by the licensees' customers,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • European Commission - DG HR (Brussels)

Quotation

Tristan Baumé, The Gravenhage Court of Appeal considers that although the licensor could not compel the licensee to comply with contractual provisions that were void under article 81 EC, the licensor was however not precluded from terminating the agreement according to the terms of the latter (Dekker / Sunfield), 16 December 2004, e-Competitions Intellectual property, Art. N° 264

Visites 4785

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues