Paris Court of Appeal - SA REFLECTIV v/ SA LEROY MERLIN, SAS ALLDIFFUSION
Decision date
2024-03-22
Decision No.
n° RG 22/07569
Nature
Unfair competition
Country
France
Jurisdiction
Paris Court of Appeal
Parties
SA REFLECTIV v/ SA LEROY MERLIN, SAS ALLDIFFUSION
LEROY MERLIN was represented by Arnaud CASALONGA, assisted by Juliette DIONSI, attorneys-at-law.
In a judgement issued on February 21st, 2022, the Paris Commercial Court condemned LEROY MERLIN and its supplier and manufacturer ALLDIFFUSION on the basis of unfair competition after REFLECTIV, which had been dereferenced by LEROY MERLIN, accused them of having copied the new packaging for its adhesive window films, which included a graphic charter, color codes, an installation kit, and an instructions manual.
The Court, however, dismissed REFLECTIV’s claims based on parasitism and ordered ALLDIFFUSION, which was declared to be in court-ordered liquidation to indemnify LEROY MERLIN against all liability.
REFLECTIV appealed against the judgement and LEROY MERLIN cross appealed.
On March 22nd, 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected all REFLECTIV’s claims concerning both unfair competition (judgement overturned) and parasitism (judgement upheld).
The issues were essential because REFLECTIV was demanding over 200,000 euros in provisional damages, and LEROY MERLIN could no longer be financially upheld contractually by its supplier who declared bankruptcy and was unrepresented in the appeal procedures.
Regarding fair competition, the Court reiterated the principle of freedom of trade in the absence of any private right, and the obligation for REFLECTIV to prove wrongful acts with the object or effect of creating a risk of confusion, since the claim for unfair competition has a tortious basis.
As the offending packaging and installation instructions were visually different, and as LEROY MERLIN’s dereferencing was not in itself criticized by REFLECTIV, the Court of Appeal quite logically dismissed the claim of unfair competition, after noting that REFLECTIV had not provided proof of its claims, in particular the year in which its products were first marketed.
It is interesting to note that the Court of Appeal took into consideration REFLECTIV’s initial statements in its subpoena (communicated by LEROY MERLIN) to the contrary of what it claimed in its appeal that its products had been distributed after its dereferencing and the creation by ALLDIFFUSION of its own products sold by LEROY MERLIN in place of those of REFLECTIV.
Concerning parasitism, the Court of Appeal applied the most consistent case law, requiring proof of investments directly linked to the products claimed and having an individualized economic value.
As REFLECTIV merely referred to global investments in the adhesive films contained in the packaging, the claim of parasitism could only be rejected as it had been by the Court.
