French Competition Law provides a comprehensive review of the French rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, commercial negotiation, abuses of a dominant position, procedure and merger control.

French Competition Law

The use of a company name, even when very well-known is not an act of parasitic behavior where the two companies have different business activities . Thus, the courts have considered that the use of the name “Caisse d'épargne” (designating a type of publicly controlled savings bank) was not actionable, where the term was used in an advertisement for a car in order to underline, in a humorous way, the useful and economic advantages of buying the car . All traders are in effect free to choose as their trade name or logo, an invented name, a family name  or a pseudonym as long as it does not create confusion with a pre-existing name.

However, a company which uses the name of a person it claims to be its sales director purely because he shares a name with a well-known group is guilty of parasitic behavior . Likewise, the transferor of a company cannot create a new undertaking using an almost identical name and distributing the same products as the undertaking sold where its conduct allows it to take advantage at no expense to itself of the investments made to develop its customer base . Also regarded as acts of parasitic behavior are: citing a co-contractor's name in an advertisement with the aim of using the other's reputation in order to enhance its message in the eyes of the public , opening a store with the same business activity under a similar name in the immediate vicinity of the usurped competitor , manufacturing and selling under the same name “carry” and “stretcher” chairs which are similar to those of a competitor , using the acronym CPESUP in the same field of study as a well-known organization, which uses the acronym CESP for preparatory classes in health-care studies  or usurping the trade name and the name of the official provider of the national health insurance fund to pharmacies . 

 The fact that the parasite is well-known does not prevent a finding of parasitic behavior based on usurpation of reputation. Thus, where the organizer of the Miss France pageant reproduces on its advertisements the name of the television channel with which it was contractually bound and the face of one of its presenters, having been traditionally associated with the presentation of the show  or where an interior decoration undertaking uses the surname of a famous designer to market furniture items of the same type as those created and sold by the latter , they are guilty of parasitic behavior. 

CA Paris, 5 June 1998, LawLex200200001115JBJ. However, the adoption by a company of a corporate name and trade name which are similar to those of a competitor in unlawful, where it gives rise to a belief in the minds of customers that it is an off-shoot of the competitor's company, in order to take unfair advantage of the reputation and the investments made by that company, CA Paris, 11 January 2013, LawLex201300000059JBJ; see also Cass. com., 31 March 2015, LawLex201500000432JBJ, finding that an undertaking which copied on its products the main monuments and tourist sites of Paris, and the Moulin Rouge, by using their names, had not behaved as a parasite in respect of the company operating the famous cabaret, when it has not sought to take advantage of the reputation of that establishment by making reference to its commercial activity.

TGI Paris, 16 November 1998, LawLex200200001059JBJ; cf. CA Paris, 25 June 1999, LawLex200200000930JBJ, on the insufficient fame of the brand targeted by the parasitic behavior.

CA Paris, 19 April 2000, LawLex200200000802JBJ.

CA Paris, 22 November 2012, LawLex201200002395JBJ.

The transfer of a business and the brands associated with it does not confer on the transferee rights over the intellectual and visual elements related to the family of the transferor, its history or the main farm buildings of the family business, so that by appropriating these elements, in order to obtain a commercial advantage, the transferee  sought to take undue advantage of the intellectual and technical efforts of the undertakings of the transferor, CA Colmar, 3 July 2019, LawLex201900000949JBJ, adding that said transferee may, on the basis of parasitism, claim against the seller, who now operates under another brand name partly made up of this surname, for the use, for commercial purposes, of the history of his family, active for many years in the production and trade of wine , as this cannot be regarded as a distinctive element relating to the presentation of the products of the owner of the transferred brand.

CA Aix-en Provence, 19 May 1994, LawLex200200001567JBJ.

Cass. com., 20 February 2007, LawLex200700000285JBJ; also see CA Nîmes, 25 October 2018, LawLex201800001650JBJ: where a partner of one undertaking who deliberately sets up a competing undertaking, located in the same municipality, taking advantage of the recognition and the name of both undertakings using the first company's medium of communication.

T. com. Paris, 3 November 2004, LawLex200400003315JBJ.

CA Nîmes, 4 April 2002, LawLex200300003355JBJ.

Cass. com., 19 September 2006, LawLex200600001932JBJ.

CA Toulouse, 19 September 2012, LawLex201200002122JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 November 2012, LawLex201200002322JBJ.

Usurpation of a company name or trade name

The protection of reputation is not limited to trade marks. The most celebrated case on questions of usurpation was about the name “Champagne” which defines the origin and quality of certain sparkling wines protected by a registered designation of origin ("appellation d'origine contrôlée"). A manufacturer not only decided to choose that name for a new perfume, but the lid of his perfume bottles also resembled the cork from a bottle of champagne. The act was considered by the Court as an attempt to use the prestige and reputation of the name “Champagne” and was consequently found to be illegal . 

According to the Court of Cassation, a company which sells its products using the word “Champagne” as a part of its name, or which refers to champagne on its packaging or in its advertising when the wine in question only accounts for 2% of its ingredients and is imperceptible in terms of taste for the consumer, is clearly seeking to benefit from the economic value and the desirability of the Champagne designation of origin . On the other hand, there is no parasitic behavior - even when a part of the characteristic elements of the Champagne designation has been used - where the alleged parasite has created a unique environment around its product and there is no possibility of a risk - even by association alone - of the distinctive character of Champagne being undermined . Further, the use of the appellation “Pashmina” for scarves made of “viscose” sold at a price substantially lower than that of products manufactured using cashmere wool , or the sale of a generic gruyère cheese, with the indication of its origin in Franche-Comté , have been held to be unlawful.

This is also the case for the unjustifiable use of a label in order to appropriate its high-profile image. A company which sells cold meat products and which, in violation of criteria laid down in the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code for the obtaining of a label, fraudulently uses a protected classification, is guilty of parasitic acts in respect of members of the association of pork and charcuterie labels .

CA Paris, 15 December 1993, LawLex200200001609JBJ. Cf. CA Nancy, 21 February 1980, concerning a glass works installed in Baccarat beside a competitor so as to profit from its reputation. See also Cass. com., 18 February 2004, LawLex201500000242JBJ: by registering the trade mark "Bain de Champagne" to designate perfumery products reproducing the name champagne while the appellation of origin had been recognized by decree of 17 December 1908, the company in question has appropriated the notion of prestige and refinement that is attached to the name and thus diverts to its benefit the attractive power of the appellation of origin.

Cass. com., 25 November 2014, LawLex201500000221JBJ.

Cass. com., 7 July 2009, LawLex201500000243JBJ: the risk of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of the Champagne "appellation" due to the commercialization of products using certain of the characteristic features of products marketed under that designation, must be assessed from the date the summons was served.

CA Paris, 26 June 2003, LawLex200400001122JBJ.

Cass. com., 23 October 2007, LawLex200700001702JBJ.

CA Paris, 25 May 2011, LawLex201200001225JBJ.

Designation of origin or label 

Usurpation of reputation also frequently occurs in the case of recognized brands . It can result from the illicit imitation of a the characteristic features of a recognizable brand  such as the use of the advertising expression attractive to customers of another brand whose reputation results from its sustained publicity efforts and the quality of its product , the marketing of chocolate bars under the name “Noir Eclats” [dark chocolate] and “Lait Eclats” [milk chocolate] infringing the trade mark  “Eclat Noir” , the use - for shoes - of red soles, which is the distinctive sign of a famous brand ,  the reproduction under the trader's own name or trade mark  of a range of products similar to those of a competitor in packaging creating confusion or an association between the products  or using a combination of the constituent elements of the visual identity of a well-known jeweler for a perfume in order to position it within the universe of luxury jewelry .

Parasitism can also result from the illegal use of a trade mark . This is also the case for the use of a competitor's trade-marked name in an advertising slogan , the use of the name of a model of a prestigious car brand to promote banking services for car owners , the use by a former distributor of the supplier's distinctive sign  or a reference in a lottery to a prestigious brand . A maxi-discount chain specializing in home furnishings is also guilty of parasitism when, in describing the infringing product it is offering for sale, it refers to the “Tam Tam style”, a direct reference to the plaintiff company's product . Similarly, an off-network retailer behaves like a parasite when, by using the brand's attractiveness to offer products bearing the trademark at very low prices, he takes advantage of a sales promotion for other products . By contrast, the use in the title of a book compiling  photographs published in a magazine, of the name of the magazine, does not constitute usurpation insofar as the photographer in question has contributed to the quality and the reputation of the magazine by contributing a number of photographic works over many years of collaboration with it .

The filing of a name similar to that of a well-known brand also constitutes usurpation of the reputation of another insofar as the customers, who associate with the latter an image of seriousness and quality, are not clearly and immediately aware of the extent, or the exact nature of the products covered by it . 

The internet has provided a new medium for exploiting others' trade mark recognition. The “first come, first served” rule for domain name registration has encouraged the practice of “cybersquatting” , which consists in registering well-known brand names as domain names, thereby, preventing the trademark holder from using them. Cybersquatting is banned by both intellectual property law (under Art. L. 713-1 et seq. of the Intellectual Property Code) and unfair competition law , in which such acts may constitute parasitic behavior , provided however that the domain name  contains a distinctive part  and is not entirely descriptive . The same is true of the exploitation of a website with an address that is almost identical and is deceptively similar to the trade name and company name of a competitor operating in the same area of activities and concerning the same potential clientele . The use of a renowned brand as a search term in reference links can also constitute the usurpation of a well-known brand name  even if the rightholder and the website owner are not competitors . It is also unlawful to use the company name, domain name  or trade name  of a competitor in respect of a sign which is sufficiently distinctive .   

Parasitism is also constituted when a reseller uses the trade mark of its supplier as a keyword on search engines and in the URL address of its own website  or where the parasite copies, for the referencing of its website, the source code and the keywords of a competitor . This is also the case when an undertaking uses the keywords “Mum Box” in the title tag of its webpage, which does not give rise to a commercial referencing identifiable by the consumer but is a natural referencing taking the user to its site “www.mylittlebox.fr” appear as a result of the search carried out using these keywords, even though they correspond to the trademark of a competing undertaking, since this act constitutes an act of customer misappropriation which enables it to to take advantage at no cost to itself from the notoriety of the complainant undertaking .  Similarly, the purchase and use of a keyword close to that of a competitor may be parasitic when it generates a risk of confusion between two products with similarities, as in the case of the registration of the keyword Actifryer to designate a product similar to that of a competitor called Actifry, which is well-known due to its long-standing position on the market . 

However, in the absence of circumstances characterizing a risk of confusion between sites, the canvassing of the clientele of others through the purchase of a keyword consisting of the trade mark or the name of a competitor is lawful, if it is not accompanied by an unfair act . 

Similarly, repeated violations by a host of the obligation to quickly remove content that it knows to be unlawful constitute acts of parasitic competition for each violation . On the other hand, an undertaking which provides its partners with a module and gives its affiliates the task of creating a site incorporating this module cannot be held liable for acts of parasitism committed by one of them, unless it played an active role in the choice of the domain name or the selection of the domain names used, since the remuneration it received was only the consideration for the creation of the technical conditions that allowed the use of the disputed signs .

Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark is also unlawful on the basis of Article L. 122-2 of the Consumer Code on unlawful comparative advertising. See Cass. com., 23 January 2007, LawLex200700000527JBJ, the use of a term devoid of distinctive character, for which the applicant cannot argue having developed a reputation, does not justify an action in parasitic competition. See also Cass. com., 29 June 2010, LawLex201000000805JBJ, specifying that in the event of usurpation of the trade mark, it is not necessary to establish trade mark infringement.

CA Paris, 21 February 1989, imitation of the design and model of the Vuitton trade mark; 30 March 2005, LawLex200500008613JBJ: use of identical logos; 25 January 2006, LawLex200600001266JBJ: copy of pink color of “Miracle” perfume and perfume bottle and silver lid plus the name “pink wonder” which immediately evokes the metallic pink color used in the advertising campaign for the product; Cass. com., 31 October 2006, LawLex200600002542JBJ, imitation of signs characteristic of the Olympic Movement; 9 March 2010, LawLex201000000327JBJ, on the affixing of the sign “French glass” used by the complainant in the same place, being the same size and using the same type face; see also CA Paris, 20 January 2012, LawLex201200000185JBJ, on the copying of characteristic elements of a Longchamp bag, using the reference “sac long chemin... à la manière Longchamp” [like Longchamps bags... goes the distance].

CA Paris, 30 January 2002, LawLex200200000556JBJ.

CA Paris, 30 January 2011, LawLex201200002004JBJ, a former distributor having, subsequent to the termination of the contractual relationship with the supplier, maintained a website on which the reseller is described as an exclusive distributor; Cass. com., 14 February 2012, LawLex201200000279JBJ, a former franchisee who not only continues to use the logo of his former franchisor and continues to be referenced under that mark, but also creates its own network by drawing on the concepts and methods of the franchisor and uses the same promotional price tables which have exactly the same appearance.

CA Versailles, 19 November 1998, LawLex200200001052JBJ.

CA Lyon, 22 February 2024, LawLex202400001791JBJ.

Cass. com., 16 February 2016, LawLex201600000387JBJ.

Cass. com., 12 July 2011, LawLex201100001254JBJ, for a work entitled “Elles ont posé pour lui”.

CA Paris, 21 February 1989, similarity of the trademark American business for clothes and the American express trademark clothing; Cass. com., 4 July 1995, filing of the brand name Orient Express; CA Paris, 20 February 2002, LawLex200200000551JBJ, “Côté sud” and “Côté femme” magazines; CA Colmar, 20 February 2002, LawLex200200006338JBJ, for passing off in order to enter a foreign market where the brand has high name recognition.

Cass. com, 18 October 2023, LawLex202300013055JBJ: the registration, in large numbers and under various names, by a professional association, of domain names that do not refer to its name, but to the name under which the federation of the profession is known, i.e. “La plasturgie” (Plastics industry) or even “plasturgie”, as well as the terms of use of those domain names, which systematically refer to the internet sites it controls, in such a way as to sweep away almost all the names by which a contact with the federation would be found by the user of a search engine who didn't know the exact internet address, are likely to create confusion in the minds of the federation's partners, including potential ones, and show its desire to follow in the federation's footsteps in order to profit, without any expenditure, from its efforts and know-how and from the reputation it has acquired.

CA Paris, 5 June 2000; TGI Nanterre, 18 January 1999, for “sfr.com”; 10 January 2000, LawLex200200000859JBJ; 10 January 2000, LawLex200200000858JBJ; 13 March 2000, LawLex200200000824JBJ; TGI Paris, 20 December 2000, LawLex200200000691JBJ, “lefigaro.com” for non-similar products and services harms a renowned brand; CA Paris, 20 November 2002, LawLex200300001293JBJ, attempt to appropriate another's trademark by creating confusion between two competing sites. 

CA Paris, 17 December 1997: use of name Interpol; TGI Marseille, 8 December 1998, Registration by an employee of the corporate name of his former employer as a domain name; TGI Nanterre, 20 March 2000, LawLex200200000817JBJ, use without authorization by the member of an exclusive distribution network of the mark of its supplier as a domain name; TGI Paris, 16 January 2001, LawLex200200000453JBJ: reproduction on a website of colors associated with well-known marks without authorization, upheld in CA Paris, 30 January 2004, LawLex200400000456JBJ; TGI Paris, 2 May 2001, LawLex200200000646JBJ; 19 September 2001, LawLex200200000616JBJ.

TGI Lyon, 7 December 1989, using the formula “today more than yesterday and less than tomorrow” on post-cards; CA Paris, 29 September 1995, LawLex200200001427JBJ, copying by a household electrical goods firm of aspects of the campaign of a well-known perfume producer.

TGI Paris, 20 June 2003, LawLex200300003430JBJ; TGI Paris, 2 April 2009, LawLex201000000033JBJ: parasitic competition by a company reserving two domain names (2xmoinschers.com and 2moinscher.com) which are very similar to the domain name “2xmoinscher.com” and which automatically redirects users having mistyped the address of the latter site, for the sole purpose of collecting a fee from the advertising agency to which the two companies are affiliated; TGI Paris, 25 June 2009, LawLex201000000025JBJ, parasitic behavior of an operator of an website, listing certain travel agencies, which reproduces the domain name of the complainant undertaking, without authorization, and presenting under remunerated advertising banners intended for competing sites of providers of travel services.

TGI Nanterre, 14 December 2004, LawLex200500005274JBJ.

T. com. Paris, 24 May 2013, LawLex201300000938JBJ.

CA Douai, 28 April 2003, LawLex200500007203JBJ.

TGI Paris, 8 January 1999: the insertion into metatags of a well-known brand name is a parasitic act; CA Paris, 13 March 2002, LawLex200200000457JBJ: a listing on a search engine using the keyword using the acronym of a competitor is unlawful; 19 May 2010, LawLex201000000745JBJ, sanctioning an advertiser for failing to register as a negative keyword with Google words corresponding to the trade name an domain name belonging to a competitor; 5 September 2013, LawLex201300001266JBJ: wrongful use on Google of the term “pap” which is widely understood by users as referring to the journal “De particulier à particulier”; 17 October 2013, LawLex201300001504JBJ: purchase and use from a search engine of the keyword “le trader” used online by another company with the same name for the purpose of poaching its customers.

CA Paris, 8 September 2004, LawLex200400003335JBJ.

TGI Paris, 30 April 2009, LawLex200900002467JBJ. See also CA Paris, 13 March 2015, LawLex201500000372JBJ: reproducing, without any technical necessity, a protected name to register a domain name which is identical, with the same spelling, without a space, of a direct competitor with prior art in relation to the distinctive signs, is constitutive of parasitism, when it allows the parasite to benefit from this fact, at a lower cost, of the investment and the reputation of an older company present on the same sector of activity.

CA Versailles, 23 March 2006, LawLex200700000035JBJ; CA Aix-en-Provence, 13 April 2011, LawLex201100000832JBJ, unnecessary use,  for the referencing of a website, the commercial name of a competitor which does not generically designate the activity in question.

Cass. com., 13 July 2010, LawLex201000000859JBJ; CA Paris, 13 March 2002, LawLex200200000457JBJ; choice of the acronym and the name of a competitor as a keyword for search engines; 12 May 2015, LawLex201500000597JBJ:  use by an undertaking via its website “www.la-cote-argus.com” of the terms “Argus”, “Argus price” or “the Argus” in order to take advantage of the reputation of the Argus motor journal.

CA Paris, 21 March 2013, LawLex201300000479JBJ.

CA Paris, 22 October 2003, LawLex200600000213JBJ.

CA Paris, 12 April 2013, LawLex201300000661JBJ.

CA Paris, 20 June 2017, LawLex201700001101JBJ.

CA Paris, 5 February 2015, LawLex201500000144JBJ, characterizing the parasitic use of the investments made by the victim undertaking  for the promotion of its deep fryer.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 3 April 2014, LawLex201400001118JBJ.

CA Paris, 2 December 2014, LawLex201400001430JBJ.

Cass. com., 25 January 2017, LawLex201700000227JBJ.

TGI Paris, 14 November 2008, LawLex200900002019JBJ.

The reproduction by a competing company of the successful products of a famous ready-to-wear fashion house, which cannot be considered fortuitous, since it is designed to evoke the latter's products in the minds of customers in order to profit from the investment and reputation of those items and sell its own products without any financial outlay, and the fact that the disputed products bear the brand name of the perpetrator or have not been commercially successful is irrelevant, CA Paris, 10 November 2023, LawLex202300013680JBJ.

CA Paris, 22 October 2003, LawLex200600000213JBJ; 25 January 2012, LawLex201200000193JBJ; 18 January 2013, LawLex201300000097JBJ; 27 February 2013, LawLex201300000270JBJ, commercialization of two models using the emblem “Mascotte Léon” on the back which is an identification mark of the brand “Comptoir des cottonniers”.

T. com. Paris, 26 April 2013, LawLex201300001400JBJ specifying that the use for the perfume Opium of a spotted panther - whereas this usage is not common in advertising and the animal is not associated with perfumes in the collective subconscious, or with the visual codes used for Opium or more generally by Yves Saint Laurent, and as no other company has used this image of a panther as guardian of a precious object and the advertising campaign has departed from previous Opium advertisements which portrayed an erotic ambience - constitutes parasitic behavior; CA Paris, 12 January 2024, LawLex202400000551JBJ: since the panther is the emblematic animal of a certain high-end jewelry house, which has consistently interpreted the panther in various forms of jewelry for several decades and has invested heavily in promoting its panther jewelry collection, so that it constitutes an individualized economic value, the reproduction by another company of a piece from this iconic collection in order to market it, characterizes an act of parasitism. See also CA Paris, 9 October 2015, LawLex201500001310JBJ, for the parasitic reproduction by a disc jockey of the graphic elements constituting the visual identity of the music group to which he belonged, in order to promote his personal performances.

CA Paris, 18 June 1992, in the context of a distribution network; 20 November 1995; Cass. com., 4 July 1995; 21 June 1994; 29 June 199, an outside network reseller, Cass. com., 14 January 2003, LawLex200300000615JBJ, on the use of a well-known trademark in a pornographic magazine.

CA Reims, 29 March 1993, LawLex200200001653JBJ: use of a correlation table comparing luxury perfumes with the supplier's product; CA Versailles, 10 March 1995, LawLex200200001478JBJ, slogan presenting a single compartment vehicle as “the new name for the Espace”; CA Paris, 29 September 1995, LawLex200200001427JBJ, holding that the imitation of an advertisement which was previously exploited by a third party is parasitic behavior; but see CA Paris, 8 October 1997, LawLex200200001215JBJ, reference to the technique of a “Place Vendôme jeweler” not sufficient to constitute an act of parasitic competition; CA Bordeaux, 2 June 1997, LawLex200200001254JBJ: former dealer claiming to stock all the spare parts of a brand; CA Grenoble, 20 January June, LawLex200200001190JBJ: the addition of a brand name of a company to the name of a private health insurance fund in order to encourage employees of the company to join it; CA Aix-en-Provence, 20 June 2001, LawLex200200000534JBJ, holding that the advertising message using the name of the competing brand in an audacious manner does not denote a desire to attract consumers, but to associate itself with the well-known trade mark for which it purports to be the substitute; CA Versailles, 5 April 2004, LawLex200900000223JBJ: the express reference in a commercial brochure to the thermal waters of the city of Spa such as to suggest to the clientele of a luxury hotel that there is economic and trade links between the spa at issue and the thermal establishment located at Spa, constitutes parasitism; TGI Paris, 30 May 2008, LawLex200800000861JBJ: the undertaking that unnecessarily made reference to the Roland Garros tennis tournament in order to promote its online betting business is guilty of parasitism, insofar as it has deliberately tried to ride on the coat tails of the French Tennis Federation (FFT) without incurring any expense and takes advantage of the investments made in respect of the organization of the tournament, of which the reputation is indisputable; CA Paris, 23 November 2012, LawLex201200002400JBJ, a marketing campaign of a product without botulinum toxin, on which are affixed the words  “the alternative to Botox injections”, and which adopts as its advertising slogan “like Botox”; 25 January 2013, LawLex201300000121JBJ, a company having used assumed names when soliciting the customers of a competitor in order to sell them products presented as an alternative with the same commercial origin, or much more effective than them, by referring to the indisputable performance of the branded products.

French Competition Law

103. Usurpation of a company name or trade name

104. Designation of origin or label

105. Usurpation of a trade mark