The Paris Court of Appeal holds that Art. 81 EC does not apply to a hairdressing franchise national network and that the provided “clause d’agrément” does not amount to a hardcore restriction (Socovi / Jean-Louis David)

Background SARL SOCOVI, the franchisee, had entered into a franchising agreement with Jean Louis David SA, the franchisor, whereby the latter granted the former the right to run a franchise for the purposes of marketing hairdressing products and services. It included inter alia the right to use the trademark, the supply of equipment, transfer of know-how to the franchisee and a “clause d'agrément” . The latter provision required the approval of the franchisor prior to any transfer by the franchisee of the business to a third party. SARL SOCOVI later transferred its business to a third party without Jean-Louis David SA's prior approval, thereby infringing the “clause d'agrément” . This infringement of the contract led to the anticipated termination of the agreement at the fault of

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

Authors

  • Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (Paris)
  • Eversheds Sutherland (Paris)
  • Johnson & Johnson (Issy-les-Moulineaux)

Quotation

Noëlle Lenoir, Dan Roskis, Charlotte-Mai Doremus, The Paris Court of Appeal holds that Art. 81 EC does not apply to a hairdressing franchise national network and that the provided “clause d’agrément” does not amount to a hardcore restriction (Socovi / Jean-Louis David), 21 September 2005, e-Competitions Effect on interstate trade, Art. N° 1315

Visites 9842

All issues

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