CASE COMMENTS: RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – NOT REQUIRED

Parasitism: The Paris Court of Appeal recalls that parasitism does not imply a likelihood of confusion (Debonix / Société Quincaillerie Angle)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Parasitism is defined in case law as "all conduct by which one economic agent interferes in the wake of another in order to take advantage without spending anything of his efforts and know-how" (Cass. com., 26 Jan. 1999, No. 96-22457). Although sanctioned on the basis of tort liability for common law misconduct, this conduct nonetheless gives rise to heated litigation, as shown by the judgment handed down by the Paris Court of Appeal on 15 April 2016. The company Debonix France, which is at the origin of the case, sells electro-portable and semi-stationary tools, an activity it carries out in particular through an Internet site accessible at the address

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 (Boulogne/Mer)

Quotation

Valérie Durand, Parasitism: The Paris Court of Appeal recalls that parasitism does not imply a likelihood of confusion (Debonix / Société Quincaillerie Angle), 15 April 2016, Concurrences Nº 3-2016, Art. N° 80837, pp. 103-105

Visites 243

All reviews