Parasitism:

The LPO argued that the FNC and MARKETING PUBLICITE 2000 had reproduced the essential characteristics of the cover of its brochure, namely:

• - a white background with the title " AGIR pour la BIODIVERSITE " and the LPO logo;
• - a slightly growing wave crossing from side to side and in which photographs of rural landscapes and animals are reproduced;
• - the LPO’s missions listed: "protecting species", "preserving spaces", "educating and raising awareness.

First of all, the President of the Paris Judicial Court recalled that unlike acts of unfair competition, parasitism does not require the proof of a likelihood of confusion.

Moreover, the President of the Paris Judicial Court stated that those elements, common to a large number of visuals relating to the protection of animal or plant species, were not appropriable nor constituted an individualized economic value, so that their reproduction could not be sanctioned under parasitism.

Similarly, it was recalled that the LPO cannot claim a monopoly on the representation of an animal in its natural environment ordered by the law of gender and neither on the fact of including a picture of an animal in a communication campaign or on communication relating to protected or non-hunted species in France.

Finally, the President of the Paris Judicial Court held, with regard to the historical reference drawing a parallel between the LPO’s action and that of the hunters (assertion in the brochure stating that "THE LPO WAS CREATED IN 1912 BY HUNTERS"), that it is not for the judge of the summary proceedings to assess the relevance or veracity of this parallel.

Consequently, the President of the Paris Judicial Court ruled that the acts of parasitism were not established with the likelihood required in summary proceedings and rejected all of the LPO’s claims on this ground.

Trademark infringement:

The LPO argued that the defendants had committed acts of infringement by imitation of its trademarks.

First of all, MARKETING PUBLICITE 2000 considered that there were serious doubts as to the validity of the trademarks opposed by the LPO.

The President of the Paris Judicial Court first recalled that "although it is not for the judge hearing the application for provisional measures to rule on the validity of trade marks, it remains of his office to examine whether the claims which may be raised in this regard before the trial judge are likely to establish whether or not the infringement alleged by the proprietor of the trade mark is plausible".

With regard to the revocation of the word trademark invoked by the MARKETING PUBLICITE 2000 company, the President held that the LPO could not rely on the plausibility of the infringement of its rights in the absence of genuine use of its trademark and the LPO " uses this sign only in a modified form, [...] and not as a trademark but in order to encourage people consulting the LPO website to participate in the actions carried out by the LPO and to designate individuals committed to the defence of biodiversity".

Following that, the FNC and MARKETING PUBLICITE 2000 considered that infringement was not established, as the words ’AGIR encore et toujours pour la BIODIVERSITE’ were not used as a trademark but in their common sense, and in the absence of any likelihood of confusion.

The President of the Paris Judicial Court, noting that this was a use of the disputed sign in the trade life (the brochure was addressed to elected officials and was intended to explain and better understand hunting, corresponding to the mission of the FNC), stated, however, that the disputed signs, which constituted the title of the double page of the brochure, were used in their common sense, to present the content of the brochure, and not as a trademark to guarantee the origin or quality of the services offered by the FNC.

The President of the Paris Judicial Court therefore also rejected all the LPO’s claims on the grounds of trademark infringement in the absence of a foreseeable infringement of its semi-figurative trademark.