*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – Cass. com, 10 May 2006, Interbrew v. Brasserie Fischer, No. 04-15.612 – Cass. com, 23 May 2006, Casple and Amstutz Levin v. Muller and Campa, No. 04-16.254. – Cass. com, June 20, 2006, Mr. X...and Société Céline c/ Infinitif e. a., No. 04-20.776 The rulings handed down by the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 23 May and 20 June 2006 make it possible to take stock of the delicate issues of the distinction between parasitism and counterfeiting and the definition of conduct constituting parasitic behaviour. In the first case (no. 04-16.254), the owner of a registered design of radiators and the company responsible for marketing these products
Share on
|
|
CASE COMMENT: RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARASITIC BEHAVIOR AND COUNTERFEIT - CHOICE DEPENDING ON THE QUALITY AS AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT OWNER OF THE PLAINTIFF - DISTINCT EVENT REQUIRED FOR ACTION ON BOTH BASIS - RESULT OF PARASITIC BEHAVIOR DISTINCT FROM THE ONE OF COUNTERFEIT
Parasitic behavior - Counterfeit : The Court of Cassation holds that when a counterfeit action is brought, the liability of the defendant on the basis of parasitism requires a distinct event (Interbrew/Brasserie Fischer)
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.
