CASE COMMENTS: DISTRIBUTION – KNOW-HOW – SUBSTANTIALITY – BRAND – NOTORIETY REQUIREMENT

Franchising: The Paris and the Versailles Courts of Appeals assess the substantiality of the know-how in the franchising agreement (Catherine M. épouse K / Speed Rabit Pizza et CF and CO / Pays Basque Evasion)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Recognizing the originality of the franchise agreement in relation to other distribution agreements presupposes a strict appreciation of the notion of know-how. The favourable treatment that competition law reserves to franchising is moreover conditioned by a triple requirement firmly stated by Regulation (EU) No. 330/2010: the know-how must be identified, secret and substantial (Art. 1, 1, g). The common law leads to practically similar requirements when Article 1131 of the Civil Code is invoked by the franchisee in support of an application for annulment of the contract for lack of know-how and therefore absence of cause (see ajd. art. 1169 from Order

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, Franchising: The Paris and the Versailles Courts of Appeals assess the substantiality of the know-how in the franchising agreement (Catherine M. épouse K / Speed Rabit Pizza et CF and CO / Pays Basque Evasion), 13 September 2016, Concurrences Nº 4-2016, Art. N° 82059, pp. 115-117

Visites 150

All reviews