{"id":5500,"date":"2024-11-13T08:43:32","date_gmt":"2024-11-13T08:43:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.jpkarsenty.com\/?p=5500"},"modified":"2024-11-21T09:02:32","modified_gmt":"2024-11-21T09:02:32","slug":"parasitism-french-supreme-court-clarifies-the-notion-of-individualized-economic-value-to-be-proved-by-the-victim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jpkarsenty.com\/en\/parasitism-french-supreme-court-clarifies-the-notion-of-individualized-economic-value-to-be-proved-by-the-victim\/","title":{"rendered":"PARASITISM – CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION ON THE CONCEPT OF \u201cINDIVIDUALIZED ECONOMIC VALUE\u201d THAT MUST BE PROVEN BY THE VICTIM"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Cass. Com., 26 June 2024, n\u00b0 23-13.535\u00a0: Maisons du Monde c.\/ Auchan\u00a0;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cass. Com., 26 June 2024, n\u00b0 22-17.647\u00a0et 22-21.497 :\u00a0 Decathlon c.\/ Intersport<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

IMPACT:<\/em><\/strong> In two rulings delivered on the same day, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed that in parasitism cases, the claimant must demonstrate both the individualized economic value they invoke and the defendant\u2019s intent to follow in their footsteps.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, it clarified the contours of individualized economic value, emphasizing that \u201cseeking cost savings to the detriment of a competitor is not inherently wrongful,\u201d thereby increasing the evidentiary burden for the claimant.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Facts of the cases<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case Maisons du Monde v. Auchan, <\/strong>the latter had marketed cups and bowls featuring \u201cvintage\u201d images designed by contracted companies. Maisons du Monde (MDM) sued Auchan for unfair competition and parasitism, claiming that these products reproduced a design similar to its Pub 50\u2019s board, created in 2010 by its style research department. Following the rejection of its claims by the Rennes Court of Appeal\u2014already on remand after cassation\u2014a further appeal was filed..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case Decathlon v Intersport, <\/strong>Decathlon marketed the \u201cEasybreath\u201d snorkeling mask, protected by a community design, while Intersport sold a similar mask under the Tecnopro brand, supplied by the German company Phoenix Group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

EasyBreath \u2013 Decathlon<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Tecnopro \u2013 Intersport<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Cassation reviewed these cases to reaffirm the criteria for parasitism, ultimately upholding the ruling in the Decathlon case while rejecting the claims in the Maisons du Monde case..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court aimed to give these rulings broad visibility as they are published in the Bulletin and will be discussed in the Court of Cassation’s Annual Activity Report. This aligns with a broader judicial trend to better define the concept of parasitism, as indicated by the Paris Court of Appeal\u2019s January 2024 publication on compensating parasitism-related damages.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Reaffirming the criteria for parasitism<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In both rulings, the Court of Cassation reiterated several principles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n