CASE COMMENT: RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES - ECONOMIC PARASITISM

Economic parasitism: The Court of Cassation considers that lower courts are fully competent to assess the criteria of a risk of confusion in order to apply the economic parasitism doctrine (Asics; Stratégie Media Conseil/IPACA)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – Cass.com, March 8, 2005, Sté James Gilberts rugby footballs Ltd. v/ Sté Asics France, n° 03-13.733 – Cass. com, April 5, 2005, Sté Stratégie média conseil c/ Association IPACA, n° 02-21.334 By these two judgments handed down on 8 March and 5 April 2005, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation entertains doubt as to whether the existence of a risk of confusion is a condition for the action brought on the basis of parasitism. In the first case, a company specialising in the manufacture of equipment for use in team sports sued for infringement and parasitic competition against one of its competitors for imitating

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.