Week of 11 November 2024

Significant imbalance
Although Article L. 442-1, I, 2° of the Commercial Code is an overriding provision of public policy, its breach cannot be considered as undermining the French concept of international public policy, and particularly so when it is invoked by franchisees for the purpose of protecting their private interests.
CA Paris, 29 October 2024, No 23/02368

Restrictive agreements
Insofar as, throughout the entire period of the infringement, the participants’ conduct formed part of a common plan pursuing a single anticompetitive aim, the Commission may consider that the infringement was continuous throughout the entire period of the infringement, unless it is established that the infringement was interrupted, which is not the case when the discussions between competing traders do not reveal any concern about the restrictive agreement, despite the gaps identified between them, and, in particular, no questioning on the part of the participating traders as to their willingness to continue their anticompetitive behavior, which is why the Commission may consider the infringement to have been continuous over the entire period of the infringement.
GC Case T-386/21 Crédit agricole SA, Judgment of 6 November 2024,

In characterizing conduct as a restriction by object, the Commission must show that such conduct – whether exchanges of information or other types of anticompetitive conduct – does not present an extremely high threshold of harmfulness to competition, but only a sufficient degree of harmfulness to it.
GC Case T-386/21 Crédit agricole SA, Judgment of 6 November 2024,

Presumption of innocence
The Commission breaches the principle of presumption of innocence by holding that the date of a trader’s first connection to a chat roommarks the beginning of his participation in the restrictive agreement, solely because anticompetitive exchanges had taken place there in the past, since at that date no discussion with an anticompetitive purpose had been observed.
GC Case T-386/21 Crédit agricole SA, Judgment of 6 November 2024,

Exclusive distribution
A distributor may not knowingly register as a trademark the signs necessary for its supplier’s business without that supplier’s consent, thereby improperly reserving for itself definitive exclusivity of distribution on the French territory, or at least control over the use of the marks necessary for such distribution.
TJ Paris, 25 October 2024, No 20/07661