CASE COMMENTS : UNFAIR PRACTICES – UNFAIR COMPETITION AND PARASITIC COMPETITION

Unfair competition and parasitic competition: The Court of Cassation recalls that there is no unfair or parasitic competition without confusion (Molinard/Joy Box Holding and PB licence)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cass. com, March 29, 2011, Molinard v/ Sociétés Joy Box Holding and PB licence, n° 09-71990 The ruling handed down by the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation on March 29, 2011 is an opportunity to recall two principles relating to the sanctioning of acts of commercial disloyalty, namely that of the absence of protection of ideas by means of the theories of unfair competition and parasitic competition, and that of the need for a risk of confusion between competitors' products as a condition for the admissibility of an action in parasitic competition. In this case, a company came up with the idea of marketing perfume boxes comprising a white cardboard

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

  • University Littoral-Cote d’Opale (Dunkerque)

Quotation

Rodolphe Mesa, Unfair competition and parasitic competition: The Court of Cassation recalls that there is no unfair or parasitic competition without confusion (Molinard/Joy Box Holding and PB licence), 29 March 2011, Concurrences N° 3-2011, Art. N° 38074, pp. 148-149

Visites 736

All reviews