linkedin

Paris 1st Instance Court - S.A. AEROPORTS DE PARIS v/ S.A. MR. BRICOLAGE

Decision date

2015-02-12

Decision No.

RG 13/16361

Nature

Trademarks

Country

France

Jurisdiction

Paris First Instance Court

Parties

S.A. AEROPORTS DE PARIS v/ S.A. MR. BRICOLAGE

The company MR BRICOLAGE was represented by Caroline Casalonga, Attorney at Law and Pascaline Vincent Attorney at Law.

In this case, the company MR. BRICOLAGE contacted the company AEROPORTS DE PARIS ("ADP") in order to inform it of its intention to use the term “ENTRE VOISINS” (i.e. “between neighbors” in English) on its magazine, in specifying that there was no likelihood of confusion with ADP’s prior trademark.

After receipt of this letter, ADP filed a new French trademark application and brought an infringement action against the company MR BRICOLAGE, considering that the sign "Entre Voisins, le magazine de Mr. Bricolage" (“between neighbors, the magazine of MR. BRICOLAGE”) infringes its two French trademarks ENTRE VOISINS, .

The company MR BRICOLAGE then counterclaimed the revocation of ADP’s rights on its French trademark ENTRE VOISINS No. 99788653 (used as title of a newsletter dedicated to neighbors of Roissy and Orly airports) and the cancellation of the second trademark ENTRE VOISINS No. 133985098, on the basis of fraudulent filing.

The Paris First Instance Court followed the arguments that Casalonga developed for the company MR BRICOLAGE and ordered the revocation of ADP’s rights on its first trademark designating “printed goods” considering that the use of the sign “ENTRE VOISINS” as the title of said newsletter was not sufficient to demonstrate the genuine use of this sign in the course of trade, nor as a trademark.

The Court also pronounced the cancellation of the second trademark ENTRE VOISINS No. 133985098 designating "publication of books; electronic publication of books and online magazines" on the ground of fraudulent filing. Indeed, the Court held that the trademark was filed 8 days after the receipt of MR. BRICOLAGE’s letter and had no other purpose than to maintain the rights of ADP to prevent any use of the sign “ENTRE VOISINS” for goods for which the sign was not even used.

The Court accordingly rejected ADP’s infringement claim and ordered the company ADP to pay the company MR. BRICOLAGE 4,000 euros as reimbursement of legal costs, under the benefit of the provisional execution.