Choose language

Jurisprudence

Here you will find a selection of decisions from French and European courts, authorities, and offices. Various teams at CASALONGA were involved in some of the cases handled. Other cases are mentioned here due to their particular importance

2024-07-17

French Competition Authority, practices implemented in the marketing of Côtes de Gascogne PGI wines

New penalty imposed by the competition authority on two companies for practices aimed at imposing resale price levels on wine distributors

Following an investigation report sent by the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Occitanie and Corse inter-regional competition investigation brigade, SAS Distribution du Domaine d’Uby (...)

2024-05-08

CJEU (9th chamber) - Hauser Weinimport GmbH v/ Freistaat Bayern

Can an alcoholic beverage containing beer be marketed as a “aromatized wine product cocktail”?

The case concerns the marketing in Germany of a drink composed of wine and beer, flavoured with elderflower. The question referred to the Court of Justice of the European (...)

2024-03-22

Paris Court of Appeal - 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 (...)