10 february 2020
Action for unfair competition: Jurisdiction of interim applications judge
The plaintiff is justified in not calling the opposing party to avoid maneuvers intended to thwart the presentation of the evidence of unfair competition by showing that the element of surprise was necessary for the success of the measure sought on the basis of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court of Cassation, 2nd civil chamber, 30 January 2020, LawLex20200000156JBJ
Disruption: Creating a competing undertaking
Even if it derogates from the articles of association of the SARL (limited company) of which he was the manager, the creation, by that former partner, of a competing company is not unlawful since all the partners, including himself, subsequently consented to it in a memorandum of understanding, and therefore the fact that on the day said memorandum was concluded he transferred all his shares to a new partner – whose consent was not able to be obtained – neither affects its validity nor the lawfulness of the new activity.
Court of Cassation, commercial chamber, 29 January 2020, LawLex20200000157JBJ
General terms and conditions of sale: Late payment penalties
An association, which can claim the status of non-professional in view of its activity is not liable for the late payment penalties provided for in Article L. 441-10, II (former L. 441 -6) of the Commercial Code.
Court of Cassation, 1st civil chamber, 5 February 2020, LawLex20200000165JBJ
Sudden termination of established commercial relationship: Unforseeability
The internalization of the service previously entrusted to a partner undertaking following the recruitment of one of its employees constitutes at minimum a partial termination of the established commercial relationship, which, even if it were foreseeable, does not relieve the client from the obligation to provide sufficient notice.
Court of Cassation, commercial chamber, 29 January 2020, LawLex20200000148JBJ
Sudden termination of established commercial relationship: Length of notice
A late delivery cannot justify the immediate termination of relations during the notice period, when previous delays have not stopped the client from giving termination notice to its service provider and since the breach in question relates to only a small part of current orders.
Court of Cassation, commercial chamber, 29 January 2020, LawLex20200000153JBJ
Abuse of dominant position: Exemption
The existence of acts of IP infringement cannot justify a discriminatory refusal to sell.
Court of Cassation, 2nd civil chamber, 30 January 2020, LawLex20200000150JBJ
Competition Authority proceedings: Business secrets
The decision by the Deputy General Rapporteur of the Competition Authority to declassify business secrets must establish why it is necessary in the debates before the Authority – which has the confidential version of the information communicated by the undertaking in question – for the other parties to the procedure, including the applicant, to be made aware of that information.
Court of Cassation, commercial chamber, 29 January 2020, LawLex20200000163JBJ
Civil sanctions: Harm
The victim of anticompetitive practices has the right to compensation not only for the direct and immediate loss of business volumes resulting from the anticompetitive practice, but also for the inevitable loss due to the delayed effect of the practice, consisting in the drop in business volumes caused by the inability to maintain the loyalty of the poached customers.
Court of Cassation, commercial chamber, 29 January 2020, LawLex20200000162JBJ