CASE COMMENTS : UNFAIR PRACTICES – ECONOMIC PARASITISM – CONDITIONS OF ACTIONS – PROOF OF INVESTMENT – EVIDENCE OF THEFT – PUBLISHING ACTIVITIES

Economic parasitism: The Court of Cassation recalls that the applicant must prove the fault of the parasite (Labrador/RR Donnelley Printing)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cass. 1st Civ. 12 January 2012, Labrador v. RR Donnelley Printing, No. 10-24696 The ruling handed down by the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 12 January 2012 is interesting, not only in that it recalls the evidentiary requirements inherent in an action based on economic parasitism, but also because it shows the usefulness of such an action to ensure the preservation of economic values not protected by a private right, without going beyond the limits of reasonableness. In this case, a publishing company had been entrusted by two companies specialising in the extraction, transformation and marketing of energy with the task of producing notices

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.