Client Area



Loyer&Abello Paris Cabinet d'avocats propriété intellectuelle

Selection of published case law of the Office

  • Selection of published case law of the Office

    • Trademarks

      • 14 January 2016 :

      Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 14 Janvier 2016 (INPI M2010030)

      Fraude (oui) – Distribution exclusive – Revendication (oui) – Contrefaçon pour les faits antérieurs – Droit d’auteur sur le signe SUPERTOP – Liquidation d’astreinte

       

      “L’enregistrement d’une marque n’est constitutif de droits que dans la mesure où il n’est pas effectué frauduleusement, notamment dans le but de s’assurer un monopole injustifié et/ou dans l’intention de nuire aux intérêts d’autrui.”

      “Les éléments constitués des styles et polices différents dans lesquels ces signes sont représentés, leur disposition les uns par rapport aux autres, et la présence d’une étoile à 5 branches en fond sur laquelle figurent les autres éléments SUPERTOP, F1 et Tecnokar, constituent une combinaison révélant un choix arbitraire, et l’empreinte de la personnalité de l’auteur.”

      Lire la Décision

      • 2 July 2015 :

      Validité des marques - TGI Marseille, référé, 2 juillet 2015

      Référé – Contestation sérieuse de la validité des marques – 24 heures du Mans – atteinte imminente (non) – durée de la course  – absence de confusion

      Attendu que si la marque” 24 HEURES DU MANS” est à l’évidence de notoriété mondiale, il n’en va pas de même des marques” 24 H” et” 24 HEURES” objet du présent référé,

      qu’en effet les marques “24 H” et” 24 HEURES” dissociées de la mention” DU MANS” font référence à la durée d’une course, au demeurant non nécessairement automobile, et ne brillent dès lors pas par une quelconque originalité,

      qu’en l’espèce la mention” 24 H” reprise par la Société Creventic dans ses affiches vise la course qui sera organisée au Castellet dans le Var entre le 10 et le 12juillet 2015, non ouverte au public, à la différence de celle des 24 HEURES du Mans,

      que la mention “24 heures ” est écrite entièrement en blanc sur fond bleu dans les affiches de la défenderesse, avec la mention” Paul Ricard” juste en dessous, alors que les marques ” 24″ et “24 HEURES” de la requérante sont écrites en noir, sans rien autour,

      que l’association demanderesse n’a pas le monopole de l’organisation d’une course automobile d’une durée de 24 heures,

      que toute personne raisonnable ne saurait confondre la course prestigieuse et mythique des 24 heure du Mans, ouve1te au public, qui a toujours lieu au Mans depuis 92 ans avec la course non ouve1te au public prévue au Castellet dans le Var entre le 10 et le 12juillet 2015 prochains,

      qu’il suit de là que l’association requérante n’apporte pas la preuve de ce qu’il a été porté atteinte à ses droits ni qu’une telle atteinte soit imminente

      Lire l’ordonnance

      • 30 April 2015 :

      Cour d'appel de Lyon, 30 Avril 2015 (INPI M20150184)

      Limitation du libellé des produits et services – articles de sport – articles de pêche

      “Mais la société S. qui est spécialisée dans la fabrication et la commercialisation de matériels de pêche et qui est titulaire de la marque Magic déposée le 17 janvier 1997 en classe 28 a bien entendu, en déposant renonciation partielle qui a été enregistrée et qui est l’objet du présent recours, procéder à une limitation de sa marque et non à une extension dont elle bénéficiait par son dépôt initial puisque les articles de pêche sont considérés, dans la classification générale de Nice comme des articles de sport”.

      Lire la Décision (

      • 5 December 2014 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 2nd section (INPI M20140747)

      Trademark registered in France – 1968 Act – distinctiveness (applicable) – absence of use (not applicable) – infringement (applicable)

      Access to the ruling (in French)

      • 27 November 2014 :

      Paris First Instance Court, order of the pre-trial judge (INPI M20140761)

      Temporary prohibition of the use of a trademark

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 21 November 2014 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section (INPI M20140743)

      Interest in acting to obtain the revocation of a trademark – Interference in the use of a sign for a business activity – (no) serious use of a trademark

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 27 June 2013 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 4th section (M20130446)

      Keywords: Evin Act of 1976 – reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling (no) – trademark infringement (yes)

      • 4 April 2013 :

      Metz Court of Appeal, 1st Chamber (INPI M20130171)

      Keywords: lack of distinctiveness – trademark infringement (no)

       

      • 12 June 2012 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI M20120392)

      Keywords: admissibility of the right holder – enforceability of the rights against third parties – change of address – invalidity for lack of use – date of publication of the registration – evidence of the use of the trademark – date of taking over the use of the trademark – implied license – use of the mark under a modified form – date of enforceability of the trademark against third parties – use of keywords similar to the trademark – presentation of the offer – function of the trademark (origin) – infringement (no) – unfair competition (no) – parasitism (no)

      • 20 March 2012 :

      Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber (PIBD-962-III-355)

      Keywords: Emergency procedure – emergency condition (no) – reversal of the interim order

      • 27 May 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section (INPI M20110498)

      Keywords: Neologism – distinctiveness of a trademark – similar products – similar signs

      • 29 September 2010 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5, 1st Chamber (upholds the decision of 12 November 2008) (INPI M20100499)

      Keywords: Adversarial principle and late communication of submissions – trademark invalidity action based on fraud – possible for any interested third party – limitation period (30 years) – disparagement

      • 20 November 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section (interim order) (INPI M20090647)

      Keywords: provisional measures – emergency – exemption to the adversarial principle – likeliness of the infringement – confirmation of the Order on request

      • 30 September 2009 :

      Paris Court of First Instance, 3rd Chamber, 4th section, 30 September 2009 (INPI M20090491):

      Keyword: infringement – similarities between the signs at hand – similarities between the products – good faith irrelevant – protection of the trade name of foreign companies – deceptive business practices

      • 11 June 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 4th section (order of the pre-trial judge) (INPI M20090082)

      Keywords: duties performed by the claimant (no) – abatement of the case – lack of jurisdiction of the procedural judge to assess the validity of a saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure)

      • 28 January 2009 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, section A (INPI M20090049)

      Keywords:  opposition (confirmed) – devolving effect of the appeal against a decision of the INPI [IP National Institute] (no) – comparison of the signs – likelihood of confusion (no)

      • 12 November 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section (INPI M20080646)

      Keywords: invalidity of the summons – jurisdiction of the procedural judge for procedural pleas – invalidity of the trademark – fraud – limitation period – admissibility of a submission – knowledge of a prior renowned trademark and fraudulent application – unfair competition and disparagement – involvement of the credibility of a company

      • 10 September 2008 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, section A (confirms Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber-1st section, 24 January 2007)

      Keywords: trademark infringement counterclaim – concept of sufficient link – stay of proceedings – validity of a bailiff’s oral report – probative force of a photograph (no) – copying of a model on Internet – disparagement and publicity likely to involve prosecution – behavior contrary to fair business practices – concept of competitive situation

      • 1 June 2007 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section (INPI M20070325)

      Keywords: concept of effective and prior use – fraudulent application for a trademark – concept of fraudulent intent

      • 24 January 2007 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section

      Keywords: trademark infringement counterclaim – concept of sufficient link – stay of proceedings – reproduction of a trademark through hypertext link – concept of using the mark “in the course of trade” – disparagement – behavior contrary to fair business practice

      • 12 January 2006 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section, 12 January 2006 (INPI B20050053)

      Keywords: trademark invalidity counterclaim – prior use of an acronym on the whole territory – trade name – commercial sign

    • Patents

      • 2 March 2017 :

      Paris Court of first instance, 2 March 2017, B20170047

      Procedure – Patent invalidity action – Admissibility (Procedure) – Interest to act (Procedure) – Impediment to activity – Serious preparations to use or market – Field of activity (Procedure) – State of competition (Procedure) – Impediment to the use of a right – Dismissal of infringement action – Business relationship (Procedure) – Admissibility [Yes]

      Scope of the patent – Limitation of scope of the patent (Scope B) – Interpretation of the claim – European patent (Scope B) – Description (Scope B) – Drawing (Scope B)

      Patentability of the invention or patent validity – Novelty – Full anteriority (Patentability) – State of the art – Availability to the public – Identical problem to solve – Dependent claims – Inventive step – Implementation by the person skilled in the art – Obviousness – Transposition of a known means  – Value (Validity B) – Technical effect – Different technical field – Validity of the patent  [no]

      Scope of the patent – Limitation of scope of the patent (Scope B) – Interpretation of the claim – Description (Scope B) – Drawing (Scope B) – Product – Method – Value (Scope B) – Reference to EPO procedure (Scope B)

      Patentability of the invention or patent validity – Person skilled in the art – Technical field  – Standardisation (Validity B) – Novelty – Full anteriority (Patentability) – Value (Validity B) – State of the art – Drawing of a patent – Patent validity [no]

       

      “Therefore, a competitor shall bring a patent invalidity action as long as he proves he has a sufficient interest to clear an incoming use of the patented method or of a similar method; the invalidity action is open to the industrial who wishes to clear a market. That is to say that the person who bring a patent invalidity action must establish that, when she introduced her action, claims whose invalidity is requested are, or may be an impediment to her economic activity, because she has or plans to have an activity in the field to which the patented invention belongs. It is not required from the claimant to patent invalidity to specify which claim of the disputed patents would be infringed by the product she markets or is preparing to market; it is merely requested to the person acting in invalidity to establish she plans to have an activity in the field to which the invention belongs and to indicate how this patent may impede her activity.

       

      In respect with contractual relationship that existed between the parties, it should be highlighted they ended before on the one hand, and on the other hand they do not deprive the co-contractor of his right to bring an invalidity action against the patents and of his interest to act per se.

       

      The criteria defined in the Protocol on the interpretation of Article 69 of the convention apply mutatis mutandis for a French patent and thus the scope of the protection of a European patent is not determined by the narrow and literal meaning of the claims and the description and drawings are not merely used to dispel ambiguities that the claims might have; nor that the claims are only guidelines and that the protection extends also to what the patent holder intended to protect according to a person skilled in the art reading the description and drawings. When the construction of the claims is necessary, what is looked for is a position that ensures at the same time an equitable protection to the patent holder and a reasonable degree of legal certainty for others. The patent must contain itself its own dictionary especially in the description. Otherwise, the words must be understood as the person skilled in the art would in consideration of his general knowledge.

       

      An invention is considered to be in the state of the art when it has been made available by and to any person not subject to secrecy at a certain date prior to the filing of the patent application or the priority date. Availability is certain when it is theoretically possible and no effective knowledge has to be proven, neither materially, as availability to the public is not subject to any form and any spatio-temporal limitation, nor intellectually, as the divulgation must be sufficiently complete and precise to allow the person skilled in the art to understand and reproduce the invention at its filing date. The prior art piece destroys novelty only if it includes all the essential technical means of the invention in the same form, the same layout and the same functioning in view of the same technical result: the anteriority which is a legal fact whose existence, date and content must be proven by any means by the person who invokes it, must be revealed in a single document whose scope is assessed as a whole.

       

      The prior state of the art is determined in the same way as the state of the art used to assess novelty of the invention, except for patent applications that were not published and for the possibility to define this prior state by the combination of different pieces, if it was reasonable for the person skilled in the art. Indeed, the prior art pieces destroy inventive step only if, separately or combined between them as a combination reasonable for the person skilled in the part, they obviously led the person skilled in the art to resolve the problem of the invention with the same solution as the invention.

       

      Read the French decision  B20170047 

      • 26 January 2016 :

      Contrepartie des brevets rachetés - CA de Paris, Pôle 5 - Chambre 1, 26 Janvier 2016 (INPI B20160005)

      Rachat d’actifs – ancien dirigeant – contrepartie des brevets rachetés – objet du contrat – brevets – Nullité d’une reprise d’actifs (non) – Annulation d’un jugement du Tribunal de commerce (non)

      Considérant que cette convention est dépourvue d’ambiguïté en ce que son objet ne concerne bien que l’ensemble des droits de propriété intellectuelle (brevets, marques, dessins, modèles, enveloppes Soleau) dont M. E J. ou les membres de sa famille seraient les propriétaires ; qu’ainsi les ‘droits d’inventeur’ visés dans cette clause ne concernent expressément que ceux que M. E J. (ou les membres de sa famille) pourrait détenir sur les titres de propriété intellectuelle dont il serait le propriétaire ; que le dernier alinéa de cette clause confirme bien qu’elle ne porte que sur les droits de propriété intellectuelle appartenant à M. E J. (ou aux membres de sa famille) puisque le versement de la somme de 150.000 € est subordonné à la régularisation de cette cession par M. E J. aux fins d’inscription auprès de l’INPI

       

      Lire la Décision

       

      • 16 April 2015 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 16 April 2015 (INPIB20150077)

      Forced communication of evidence  -Jurisdiction – Case management judge

       

      S’il est vrai que le juge de la mise en état n’est pas juge de la validité du brevet en cause ni des licences croisées, de leur périmètre et de leurs effets entre les parties au litige, ces moyens relevant de la compétence du juge du fond, il n’en demeure pas moins que le présent juge doit apprécier si la contestation élevée sur le brevet et ces licences est de nature à avoir une incidence sur les demandes telles que formées par la société HIGH POINT et sur la nécessité ou l’opportunité d’ordonner, avant d’avoir statuer sur ces points, la production des pièces demandées ou une expertise.

      II ressort de la lecture des décisions rendues en Hollande et en Allemagne que la partie hollandaise du brevet EP’772 a été annulée aux Pays Bas par jugement au fond du 15 septembre 2010 rendu par le tribunal de la Haye (le fait que l’affaire soit pendante devant la cour d’appel n’enlevant rien à ce fait juridique) et que la cour fédérale allemande (Bundesgerichtshol) a partiellement annulé le brevet de la société HIGH POINT et modifié l’étendue des revendications 1 à 14, par un arrêt du 26 juin 2014; que la contrefaçon n’a pas été reconnue par les juridictions allemandes.

      Il apparaît encore des décisions rendues aux Etats-Unis que les licences ont été débattues devant les juges et qu’elles ont été reconnues opposables à la société HIGH POINT.

      En conséquence, la demande de production de pièces formées par la société HIGH POINT ou la demande d’expertise est prématurée devant le juge de la mise en état et il convient que la juridiction du fond statue d’abord sur les licences croisées, leur périmètre et leurs effets entre les parties au litige, puis sur la validité du brevet EP’772 avant de statuer sur les demandes de production de pièces.

      Download the Décision (in French)

      • 20 March 2015 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 2nd section (PIBD 1028, INPI B20150029)

      Keywords: Compulsory grant of exclusive license ordered by the court – patent value estimation criterion based on invention maturity level – patent value estimation criterion based on infringement risks of third party patents – favoritism in license granting (no) – minority board membership for researchers in companies developing their inventions – scientific cooperation contract – revocation of the pre-trial examination closure order (no) –  voluntary intervention of the future exclusive license holder

       

      View the full decision (in French)

      • 5 December 2014 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section (INPI ref. B20140203)

      Keywords: Patent scope regarding pharmaceutical drug – validity of a supplementary protection certificate – Protection by the originating patent – Patentability – Definition of the skilled person – Second therapeutic application – Inventive step – Producer & importer responsibility

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 25 November 2014 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5, 1st chamber (INPI B20140190)

      Keywords: employee invention – Patentability of the invention – Invention related to the employee’s assignment – Compensation

       

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 24 October 2014 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section (PIBD no. 109, III-4, INPI B20140168)

      Keywords: employee invention – invention as part of the assignments of the working contract – compensation of the invention – time limitation (no) – starting point of the limitation time – prevalence of an internal policy (no)

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 10 October 2014 :

      Paris First Instance Court, order of the pre-trial judge, 3rd chamber, 2nd section (INPI B20140166)

      Keywords: Disjunction (no) – Temporary compensation (no) – Mandatory disclosure of evidence (no)

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 21 March 2014 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5 - Ch. 2 (INPI B20140035)

      Keywords: Sufficient description (drawings) – Reproduction by the skilled person – Standard competence in the field of art – dependent claims in case of a void main claim – inventive step – liability for sudden business termination

      Read the decision

      • 6 December 2013 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 5th pole, 2nd chamber (INPI B20130257)

      Keywords: provoked appeal – Admissibility

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 22 November 2013 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section (INPI 20130246)

      Keywords: Order to seize evidence – Videos as a means of proof for the seized party – Concealed seizure of evidence – Personal conclusions of the bailiff – Infringement by equivalence – Allocation of a provision on the damages

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 18 October 2013 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5, 2nd chamber

      Keywords: Abusive court action – Change in the patent claims – Intention to cause harm – Abusive order to seize evidence – Damage

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 11 September 2013 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 5th pole, 1st chamber (INPI B20140135)

      Keywords: Patent infringement by supply of means (no) – Approval of transactions to settle patent infringement damages – Breach of a non-disclosure agreement

      Review the ruling

      • 7 June 2013 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section, (INPI – B20130075)

      Keywords: patent infringement claim – patent invalidity counterclaim – invalidity for lack of patentability – presentation of information

      • 29 March 2013 :

      Paris Court of First Instance, 3rd chamber, 3rd section, (INPI – B20130053)

      Keywords: order of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – withdrawal – lack of loyalty

      • 15 February 2013 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section, (INPI – B20130052 ; Gaz. Pal. N° 69 to 71, p. 20)

      Keywords: order of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – withdrawal – irregularity – lack of signature

      • 11 January 2013 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 3rd section, (INPI B20130003)

      Keywords: employee invention – work-related invention – economic benefits of the invention – supplementary payment

      • 13 December 2012 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 1, 2nd chamber, (INPI B20120164)

      Keywords: Order of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure)– withdrawal – irregularity – lack of signature

      • 12 June 2012 :

      Supreme Court, Commercial chamber, (INPI B20120089)

      Keywords: Employee invention – supplementary payment – limitation period for the claim (no) – knowledge of the elements necessary for the calculation of the supplementary payment (no)

      • 10 January 2012 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 1st section(INPI B20120002)

      Keywords: conciliation proposal from the CNIS (National commission for employee invention) – time-period of one month – enforceability

      • 16 December 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section, (INPI B20110221)

      Keywords: employee invention – supplementary payment – use of the invention

      • 9 December 2011 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 1, 2nd chamber, 15 November 2012 (upholding the order of the ParisFirst Instance Court of 9 December 2011) (INPI B20120152):

      Keywords: conciliation proposal from the CNIS (National commission for employee invention) – enforceability – order of the President of the Paris First Instance Court – time-period to resort to the First Instance Court to challenge the proposal – referral to the Court in the time-period (no)

      • 9 December 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, Order of withdrawal, (INPI B20110194)

      Keywords: conciliation proposal from the CNIS (National commission for employee invention) – enforceability – Order of the President of Paris Court of First Instance – time-period to resort to the First Instance Court to challenge the order – referral within the time-period (no)

      • 15 November 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section, (INPI B20110184)

      Keywords: removal of action and appeal – non-acceptation – saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure)– revoked European patent – validity of the order of saisie-contrefaçon – jurisdiction of the Court – pending proceeding – abusive proceedings (yes) – abuse of saisie-contrefaçon (yes)

      • 2 November 2011 :

      Supreme Court, Commercial chamber, (INPI B20110176)

      Keywords: divulgation of the invention – infringement of a NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) – inventive activity – scope of patent protection – claim

      • 20 May 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section, (INPI B20110134)

      Keywords: invalidity of a report of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) (no) – findings of the bailiff – remarks of the expert – validity of the patent – infringement (yes) – reproduction of the features of the claims (yes) – invalidity of the patent – prior divulgation by the sales of two machines

      • 28 April 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 4th section, (INPI B20110092)

      Keywords: action in payment of the supplementary payment – procedure (admissibility) – 5-year limitation period – nature of the claims (wage-related claims) – determined or determinable obligations – employee invention (work-related invention) – supplementary payment – application over time of the law – collective agreement

      • 18 March 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section, (INPI B20110076)

      Keywords: revocation of the order of closure of the pre-trial (no) – rejection of the submissions (no) – request for the communication of documents (rejected) – request for a stay of proceeding (rejected) – inventive activity – request for partial claim (rejected)

      • 13 January 2011 :

      Paris First Instance Court, order of the pre-trial judge, 3rd Chamber, 4th section, (B20110027)

      Keywords: foreign judgments – Order to produce information (final decision)

      • 8 July 2010 :

      Paris First Instance Court, order of the pre-trial judge, 3rd Chamber, 4th section, (INPI B20100143)

      Keywords: employed inventor – financial provision for the trial

      • 1 July 2010 :

      Bordeaux Court of Appeal, (INPI B20100116)

      Keywords: patentability of the invention – inventive activity – adjustment of know argument – divulgation in the 6 months preceding the application – divulgation by the alleged infringer

      • 29 June 2010 :

      Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber, (INPI B20100118):

      Keywords: licensing agreement – resolution clause – purely arbitrary clauses (no)

       

      • 25 February 2010 :

      Supreme Court, 2nd civil Chamber

      Keywords: upholds the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal of 19 December 2007 – invalidity of the request – abuse of procedure (yes)

      • 29 January 2010 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section, (INPI B20100006)

      Keywords: rejection of the pleadings (no) – rejection of the submissions (no) – patent infringement because of import of Chinese goods – deceptive marketing practices (no) – unfair competition (no)

      • 13 January 2010 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section, (INPI B20100018)

      Keywords: Employee invention – evidence of the inventive activity of the employee – supplementary payment – collective agreement

      • 18 December 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section (INPI B20090197)

      Keywords: stay of proceedings until the decision of the Court of Appeal on the validity of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) is taken

      • 8 December 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI B20090201)

      Keywords: stay of proceedings – proper administration of justice – material jurisdiction – pre-trial judge

      • 24 November 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI B20090175)

      Keywords: saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – pending procedure – no valid jurisdiction for the judge who ordered the saisie-contrefaçon – infringement of the patent (no) – contributory infringement (no)

      • 21 October 2009 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5, 1st Chamber (INPI B20090189)

      Keywords: registration of an act to the RNB (National Patent Register) – Article L. 613-9 of the French Intellectual Property Code – inadmissibility of a third party to act to obtain the invalidity of these registrations

      • 9 October 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section (INPI B20090165)

      Keywords: request for suspending the trial (rejected) – stay of proceedings (yes) – separation of trials – abuse of process (no)

      • 30 January 2009 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section (INPI B20080011)

      Keywords: lack of industrial nature (no) – lack of invention (no) – insufficient descriptions (no) – lack of novelty (no) – lack of inventive activity (yes) – invalidity of the patent (yes) – abusive procedure (yes) –  deliberate harm

      • 19 December 2008 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, section A, (INPI B20070202)

      Keywords: Request – mandatory mentions – lack of mention of the address – invalidity – abuse of process (yes) – bad faith of the claimant – blameworthy intent

      • 16 December 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section, (INPI B20080173)

      Keywords: inventive activity (yes) – rejection of the invalidity claim on the ground of a lack of inventive activity

      • 10 November 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section, (INPI B20080185)

      Keywords: employee invention – co-author – supplementary payment

      • 31 October 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 2nd section (INPI B20080145)

      Keywords: ownership claim over a patent (rejected) – Soleau envelope – prior rights – inconsistent statements – abuse of process (no)

      • 21 October 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI B20080143)

      Keywords: patent infringement claim – saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) of designs – infringement of the patent (no)

      • 24 September 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section (INPI B20080139)

      Keywords: employee invention – inventive activity of the employee (yes) – statement from the immediate superior – supplementary payment for the unexploited patents (yes)

      • 15 April 2008 :

      Bordeaux First Instance Court, 1st civil Chamber (INPI B20080068)

      Keywords:  inventive activity (yes) – divulgation following contractual wrongdoing – invalid divulgation – validity of the patent (yes) – infringement of the patent (yes)

      • 12 March 2008 :

      Paris First Instance Court, order of the pre-trial judge, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI B20080060)

      Keywords: procedure – forced communication of submissions (no)

      • 30 January 2008 :

      TGI Paris, 3ème ch – 3ème sect, 30 janvier 2008 (INPI B20080011)

      Mot-clef : défaut de caractère industriel (non) – absence d’invention (non) – insuffisance des descriptions (non) – défaut de nouveauté (non) – défaut d’activité inventive (oui) – nullité du brevet (oui) – procédure abusive (oui) – volonté de nuire.

      • 29 January 2008 :

      Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber (INPI B20080009)

      Keywords: request for saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – mistake on the registration of the company to the RCS (Companies and Commerce Register) – mistake on the kind of company – substantial mistake which cannot be rectified (yes)

      • 23 October 2007 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI B20070151)

      Keywords: Bobigny First Instance Court has no jurisdiction over the request for saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – therefore invalidity of the saisie-contrefaçon – referral to the Court in the 15-day period after a saisie-contrefaçon (no) – personal findings of the bailiff during the saisie-contrefaçon (no) – descriptive seizure before material seizure – invalidity of the operations of saisie-contrefaçon – objective findings of the bailiff on an Internet page (no) – invalidity of the report on a website (yes)

      • 23 May 2007 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section (INPI B20070075)

      Keywords: industrial application (yes) – inventive activity (yes) – validity of the patent (yes) – absence of contributory infringement

      • 2 May 2007 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st section (INPI B20070087)

      Keywords: saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) (invalid) – saisie-contrefaçon report (invalid) – lack of description of the products – lack of the products’ references

      • 2 February 2007 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 14th Chamber, section B (upholding the interim order of the Paris First Instance Court of 5 April 2006) (INPI B20070205)

      Keywords: capacity to bring the action (no) – substantial mistake on the registration of a company on the RCS (Companies and Commerce Register) – impossibility to rectify the mistake – Article 494 of the French Civil Procedure Code – lack of mandatory statement affecting the defendant

       

      • 24 May 2006 :

      Paris First Instance Court, order of the pre-trial judge, 3rd Chamber, 3rd section (INPI B20060092)

      Keywords: invalidity of the summons – inexistence of the legal entity – invalidity of the saisie-contrefaçon (infringement-seizure)

       

      • 5 April 2006 :

      Paris First Instance Court, interim order (INPI B20060055)

      Keywords: conceptual mistake – rectification request (no) – withdrawal of the orders of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement-seizure) – return of the documents – irregularity in the request for saisie-contrefaçon (yes) – abuse of right (no)

       

    • Designs

      • 27 January 2015 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, pole 5 / 1st chamber (INPI D20150022)

      Keywords: individual character of a design: definition of the informed user, freedom of the creator and intensity of the differences – valid document regarding prior disclosure – infringement of a design: awareness of the informed user, characterization through the overall impression rather than minor differences – copyright: criterion of the creative effort made by the author

      View the decision (in French)

      • 9 September 2014 :

      General Court of the European Union, 3rd chamber, (PIBD 1019 III-31, INPI 20140211)

      Keywords: European Union design – Invalidity proceedings – Relevance of the invisible parts (no) – Registered EU design on a broken cookie – Definition of the protection granted to designs – Complex product (non) – Freedom of design of the author – Lack of individual character – Articles 4, 6 and 25 of the EC regulation no. 6/2002.

      Review the decision

      • 11 December 2013 :

      Supreme Court - Commercial Chamber (INPI D20130327)

      Keywords: saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – multiple grounds – cancelled design – validity of an investigation by a bailiff

       

      Review the decision (in French)

      • 27 June 2013 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 4th section (INPI D20130173)

      Keywords: Design of a piece of furniture – European Union model – individual character – admissibility of a prior use – Infringement – overall impression

       

      Review the decision

      • 2 August 2012 :

      OHIM, 3rd board of appeal (Darts-ip – R0914_2011-3):

      Keywords:  individual character (no) – non-visible parts of the product – normal use – essential characteristic – non-visible characteristic – prior art (yes) – aware user

      • 3 April 2012 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 1st section (INPI D20120093)

      Keywords:  validity of a European design – novelty (yes) – individual character (yes) – proof of prior art – copyright (no) – infringement (yes) – unfair competition (no) – prohibition throughout the entire territory of the European Union

      • 2 December 2011 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5 –2nd chamber (reversing the 27 April 2007 decision) (INPI D20110213)

      Keywords: invalidity of the design (yes) – prior divulgation (yes) – concept of divulgation – absolute effect of the invalidity of a design – invalidity of saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) based on an invalid design – invalidity of a seizure based on copyright – invalidity of a seizure based on the French Intellectual Property Code – objective of a seizure based on copyright (seizure of samples) – invalidity of a seizure for the infringement of procedural rules – rejection of the claim of infringement for lack of evidence – rejection of the claim  on the ground of unfair competition

      • 21 September 2010 :

      Paris Commercial Court, 15th chamber (INPI D20100221)

      Keywords: reciprocity principle (Berne convention) – presumption of ownership of property rights – protection by copyright – protection by Design law – design validity – quasi-slavish reproduction (yes) – infringement of Design (yes) – unfair competition and parasitism (yes)

      • 19 January 2010 :

      Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber (INPI D2010002)

      Keywords: saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure) – invalidity argument – prior probationary act – procedural plea (no)

      • 10 November 2009 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 1, 2nd Chamber (INPI D20090113)

      Keywords: interim order – order for saisie-contrefaçon (infringement seizure)– partial withdrawal of the order – misuse in the exercise of rights of appeal (no)

      • 19 May 2009 :

      Bordeaux First Instance Court, 1st civil chamber (INPI D20090066)

      Keywords: Designs inspired by elements in the public domain – mark of personality (no) – protection under copyright (no) – invalidity of the designs

      • 7 November 2008 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 14th Chamber, section B (INPI D20080150)

      Keywords: interim order (invalidity) – jurisdiction of Paris Commercial Court – Internet website available from Paris – copyright – Berne Convention – reciprocity principle – ownership of copyright (presumption) – protection of a design by copyright – validity of the design – verdict of infringement – verdict of unfair competition and parasitism

       

      • 28 May 2008 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, section A (INPI D20080083)

      Keywords: invalidity of the design – divulgation before the application is filed (yes)

      • 27 September 2007 :

      Paris Commercial Court, 15th Chamber (INPI 20070220)

      Keywords: complete anticipation / prior art (yes) – prior divulgation (yes) – invalidity of the subsequently registered design – copyright (no)

      • 24 January 2007 :

      Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Chamber, section A, (upholds Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 1st section) (INPI D20080101)

      Keywords: counterclaim in design infringement – concept of sufficient link – stay of proceeding – validity of bailiff report – probationary force of a photograph (no) – reproduction of a design on a website – disparagement – behavior contrary to fair business practices – concept of situation of competition

      • 24 January 2007 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 3rd chamber, 1st section:

      Keywords: counterclaim in design infringement – concept of sufficient link – stay of proceeding – reproduction of a design through a hypertext link – quasi-identical reproduction – disparagement – behavior contrary to fair business practices

      • 27 October 2006 :

      Paris Commercial Court, 15th chamber (INPI D20060123)

      Keywords: reciprocity principle (Berne Convention) – presumption of ownership of property rights –  marketing cost – complete anticipation / prior art (no) – quasi-slavish imitation – overall impression – ornamental and arbitrary choice – unfair competition (yes) – direct competition – customer poaching

      • 9 February 2006 :

      Paris First Instance Court, 31st chamber (INPI D20060030)

      Keywords: public prosecution – design infringement (yes) – concept of informed observer – copyright (yes) – bad faith (yes) – guilty verdict – fine