Industrial Property Law

The seizure report is cancelled ipso jure if the plaintiff fails to take civil or criminal action on the merits, in accordance with Article L. 615-5, paragraph 5, of the Intellectual Property Code.
The seizure may be annulled on the grounds of a procedural defect, pursuant to Articles 112 to 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such as the judicial commissioner's failure to present the seizure repo …

Grounds

The seizure report is cancelled ipso jure if the plaintiff fails to take civil or criminal action on the merits, in accordance with Article L. 615-5, paragraph 5, of the Intellectual Property Code.

The seizure may be annulled on the grounds of a procedural defect, pursuant to Articles 112 to 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such as the judicial commissioner's failure to present the seizure report to the seized party at the end of the operation. In such cases, the defendant must demonstrate that the irregularity is prejudicial to him or her .

Annulment of the seizure may also be the result of a material irregularity within the meaning of Article 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such as an irregularity in the conditions under which the seizure order was issued, notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which issued the ordinance to revoke it . Invalidation of a patent has an absolute effect. Its invalidity therefore also entails that of the seizure . On the other hand, the failure to mention the first and last names of the judicial commissioner, who is a partner in a professional partnership , or the fact that the judicial commissioner seized only one sample instead of the two authorized by the order do not constitute material irregularities liable to invalidate the seizure, which is more favorable to the seized party .

A seizure for infringement is merely an evidentiary act prior to the proceedings, which are only initiated by the application for infringement. Consequently, its invalidity can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings . While its pronouncement has no impact on the validity of the infringement action, the rectifying of the infringement action in the course of the proceedings does not render the prior seizure valid . In effect, since the infringement action is only initiated by the request submitting the claim to the court, prior infringement seizure operations do not form an integral part of it. Thus, if the patent assignment granted to the claimant has not been published by the date of presentation of the application for a seizure, the subsequent regularization, which renders his infringement action admissible, has no effect on his lack of standing to request a seizure, since his rights were not enforceable against third parties at the date of his application . The prohibition of a seizure for infringement does not prevent the proprietor of the right from taking any further legally permissible action, including carrying out a new seizure, except in the case of abuse, which cannot be inferred from the fact that the new seizure takes place very soon afterwards .

CA Paris, 3 July 2009, LawLex202300006089JBJ.

Cass. com. 17 March 2015, LawLex201500000366JBJ, noting that the exclusive jurisdiction of the court having issued the order on ex parte application to consider the appeal to set aside - even if the trial court is seized of the case - does not prevent the latter, considering the conformity of the evidence submitted to it, from setting aside an IP seizure report on grounds relating to the conditions under which the order authorizing the seizure was issued.

Cass. com. 28 September 2022, LawLex202200011321JBJ, which specifies that such annulment results in the absolute impossibility of relying on the contents of the seizure report and the goods seized, as well as the invalidation of any measure resulting therefrom.

Cass. com. 23 April 2003, LawLex202200003822JBJ.

CA Paris, 9 May 2014, LawLex202300004456JBJ.

Cass. com., 14 September 2010, LawLex202200003686JBJ, dismissing the argument that the invalidity arising from the judicial commissioner's failure to deliver the act recording the deposit of security to the seized party constitutes a formal defect that must be raised before any defense on the merits.

Cass. com., 31 October 2006, LawLex202200003392JBJ.

Cass. com., 8 July 2008, LawLex202200000553JBJ.

Industrial Property Law

402. Grounds

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

402. Grounds

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise