CASE COMMENTS: DISTRIBUTION - RETAIL BRAND - INFRINGEMENT - REFUSAL TO SELL

Selective distribution: The Bordeaux Court of Appeal rules that a major retailer can be condemned for having communicated on a product that is not available in stock and recalls the legality of the principle of refusal to sell (Régis X et Fils / Lidl)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Large retailers put strong pressure on suppliers for all products for which a promotional communication is planned. In practice, service and penalty rates are systematically increased in order to guarantee the availability of products at the time announced in the communication. This case confirms the reality of the risks put forward to justify these increases and will reinforce their validity in a context of reinforcement of the fight against disproportionate penalties (see C. com., L. 442-1, I, 3°, resulting from the ASAP law of 7 Dec. 2020). In this case, a non-trading company (société civile d'exploitation agricole, SCEA) produces a wine bearing the name

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

Quotation

Nicolas Éréséo, Selective distribution: The Bordeaux Court of Appeal rules that a major retailer can be condemned for having communicated on a product that is not available in stock and recalls the legality of the principle of refusal to sell (Régis X et Fils / Lidl), 18 March 2021, Concurrences N° 2-2021, Art. N° 100533, pp. 102-103

Visites 189

All reviews