This book provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to distribution: exclusive purchase and exclusive supply, exclusive and selective distribution, motor vehicle distribution, franchises, commercial agents.

French Distribution Law

According to established case law, the sale of luxury goods by a non-authorized distributor under conditions which are incompatible with the reputation of the brand is an act of unfair competition . The sale of the disputed products by professional “discount stores”  or the use of products as loss leader brands  have thus been penalized. On the other hand, according to the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation manufacturers of dermo-cosmetic products may not claim that the sale by auction of products of their brand, seized from a trader prosecuted for aggravated money laundering, forgery and use of forgeries, to the agency for the management and recovery of seized and confiscated assets, infringes the rights they hold over their selective distribution networks .

The sale of products in an unfavorable context, for example: close to down-market items  or “food” products , on a market stall or out of the back of a van , the resale of high-tech products by unskilled staff  or staff without the necessary competences , the presence near the reseller's sales outlets of a hypermarket , the implementation of a low-pricing policy , mail-order sales  or the distribution of products as part of a lottery  are likely to depreciate the product image, even for an old product line .  The sale of non-network products also damages the brand image when it is not accompanied by the necessary demonstrations and instructions and when the after-sales service provided by the third party is subject to criticism from customers . The presentation of products protected by a selective distribution network in the leaflet of a supermarket chain, or their display in a store in racks or on top of their boxes on the floor, for a sale made without any advice provided during a one-off advertising operation, is also a devaluation of the brand . Likewise, the former member of a selective distribution network who still reproduces the brand logo on its internet site and suggests the sale of new products bearing that brand in violation of its contractual obligations is guilty of unfair competition . This is also the case of non-authorized third parties selling luxury perfumes  or watches  without the approval of the manufacturer on a website without complying with the brand image required of network members.

However, the sale by a third party of products covered by a selective distribution network does not constitute misconduct where it complies with the supplier's general terms relating to their presentation, price and packaging  and where it has not depreciated the brand image of the distributed items . This is the case for the sale of the contract goods in small quantity by a third party to the network  or their sale at a reduced price where unlawful sourcing is not proven . Furthermore, a network head, which, in certain circumstances, chooses the same presentation for its products as that which it considers to be detrimental when carried out by third parties, cannot bring  action for liability against the latter .

CA Versailles, 1 June 1987; 15 September 1988, LawLex200200001919JBJ; CA Dijon, 13 November 1990, LawLex200200004805JBJ; CA Paris, 26 September 1991, LawLex200200001790JBJ; CA Orléans, 16 June 1992, LawLex200200001722JBJ; CA Paris, 2 October 1992, LawLex200200001705JBJ; 17 February 1993, LawLex200200001666JBJ; Cass. com., 23 February 1993, LawLex200200001662JBJ; 18 October 1994, LawLex200200001534JBJ; CA Pau, 8 February 1996, LawLex200200001392JBJ; CA Paris, 11 September 2000, LawLex200200000745JBJ.

Cass. com., 21 June 1994, LawLex200200001557JBJ.

CA Paris, 7 June 1995, LawLex200200001446JBJ.

TGI Bordeaux, 6 August 1990. See, also, CA Versailles, 23 February 1995, LawLex200200003157JBJ, upheld by Cass. com., 27 January 1998, LawLex200200002646JBJ; Commission Decision No 92/33/EEC of 16 December 1991, Yves Saint Laurent Parfums, LawLex200500005352JBJ.

CA Paris, 18 November 1993, LawLex200200005350JBJ; Cass. com., 2 July 1996, LawLex200200005587JBJ: the use by a third party outside the network of contract goods otherwise than with the aim of selling it, in particular as part of a lottery, is an unlawful use of the brand; CA Versailles, 19 November 1998, LawLex200200001052JBJ: the offer of brand products to the participants of a lottery entails a trivialization and depreciation of that brand.

CA Versailles, 19 November 1998, LawLex200200001052JBJ; CA Paris, 30 May 2002, LawLex200200004199JBJ: a company which, in breach of its contract commitments, sells to a non-authorized distributor a significant quantity of the products of a former line, disorganizes the selective distribution network set up and undermines its brand image.

CA Colmar, 22 March 2021, LawLex202100000972JBJ.

Cass. com., 18 November 2020, LawLex202000003300JBJ, overturning on that point CA Paris, 9 January 2019, LawLex201900000042JBJ: discounted sales in damaged packaging.

T. com. Saint-Brieuc, 12 October 2009, LawLex200900003212JBJ.

CA Paris, 23 November 2012, LawLex201200002380JBJ; 3 April 2019, LawLex202000001900JBJ000482JBJ: presentation on the home page of a private sales site close to products that are incompatible with their image and without any distinction according to the standing of the products; 30 August 2019, LawLex202000001900JBJ; 9 June 2021, LawLex202100003628JBJ.

CA Paris, 23 January 2019, LawLex202000001900JBJ000108JBJ.

CA Nancy, 8 February 2006, LawLex200600001838JBJ.

CA Paris, 28 September 1989, LawLex200200001898JBJ; CA Lyon, 25 June 1990, 5 judgments, LawLex200200001860JBJ, LawLex200200001861JBJ, LawLex200200001862JBJ, LawLex200200001863JBJ, LawLex200200001864JBJ; Cass. com., 23 February 1993, LawLex200200001662JBJ; TGI Toulon, 15 March 1993, LawLex200200001657JBJ; CA Bordeaux, 25 January 1994, LawLex200200001602JBJ; Cass. com., 21 June 1994, LawLex200200001557JBJ: the sale at slashed price of contract goods by a third party to a selective distribution network is an unfair competition action, failing any proof of authorization of the brand owner; CA Paris, 7 June 1995, LawLex200200001446JBJ; Cass. com., 19 May 1998, LawLex200200001123JBJ.

CA Paris, 2 October 1992, LawLex200200001705JBJ; Cass. com., 18 October 1994, LawLex200200001534JBJ.

CA Pau, 8 February 1996, LawLex200200001392JBJ.

Cass. com., 8 November 2016, LawLex201600001851JBJ.

CA Paris, 19 October 2022, LawLex202200009084JBJ.

Cass. crim., 31 January 2018, LawLex201800000237JBJ.

CA Paris, 18 October 2006, LawLex200800000037JBJ: a hypermarket which sells products distributed by a selective distribution network in piled up boxes, on a podium near its central alley or on shelves mixed with other products of a different nature and a lesser price, depreciates the products and annihilates the efforts displayed by the network developer to promote them.

CA Pau, 11 May 1999, LawLex200200000948JBJ, upheld by Cass. com., 1 July 2003, LawLex200300002729JBJ.

CA Paris, 29 November 2017, LawLex201700002026JBJ.

CA Paris, 11 September 2000, LawLex200200000745JBJ; 22 September 2004, LawLex200500004511JBJ.

CA Versailles, 15 September 1988, LawLex200200001919JBJ; CA Paris, 17 February 1993, LawLex200200001666JBJ; CA Bordeaux, 25 January 1994, LawLex200200001602JBJ; Cass. com., 18 October 1994, LawLex200200001534JBJ.

CA Paris, 23 October 1995, LawLex200200005502JBJ: the sale in a shopping arcade next to a big mall depreciates the luxury character of perfumes usually sold in a network.

220. Harm to brand image.