Industrial Property Law

The seizure for infringement procedure is designed to provide the patent owner with the evidence required to sanction infringement of his or her rights . Any person entitled to bring an infringement action may apply to any judicial commissioner (commissaire de justice) for a seizure of counterfeit goods, by virtue of an order on ex parte application by the civil court (Art. L. 615-5, para. 2, IP C …

Seizure for infringement (saisie-contrefaçon)

The seizure for infringement procedure is designed to provide the patent owner with the evidence required to sanction infringement of his or her rights . Any person entitled to bring an infringement action may apply to any judicial commissioner (commissaire de justice) for a seizure of counterfeit goods, by virtue of an order on ex parte application by the civil court (Art. L. 615-5, para. 2, IP Code).

The seizure may consist of a detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or an actual seizure of the allegedly infringing goods or services, as well as any related documents. The latter may be seized even in the absence of the products or services in question (Art. L. 615-5, para. 2, IP Code) . The court may also order the detailed specification or actual seizure of the materials and instruments used to manufacture or distribute the allegedly infringing products or provide the allegedly infringing services (Art. L. 615-5, para. 3, IP Code). Enforcement of the measures ordered by the court may be made subject to the provision by the plaintiff of guarantees intended to ensure potential compensation of the defendant if the infringement action is subsequently found to be unfounded or the seizure annulled (art. L. 615-5, para. 4, IP Code). These guarantees must be in place before the seizure is carried out (Art. R. 615-2-1, para. 1, IP Code).

Judicial commissioners may be assisted by experts appointed by the applicant. By virtue of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the expert must be independent, failing which the seizure will be deemed invalid.  The expert may be an industrial property attorney. In this respect, the fact that the seizing party's industrial property attorney has, at the latter's initiative, drawn up a report describing the characteristics of the offending product, does not prevent his/her subsequent appointment as an expert, as this mission is not subject to an obligation of impartiality and does not constitute expert appraisal within the meaning of Articles 232 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure . On the other hand, a representative of one of the referring parties does not meet the criterion of independence .

Cass. com. 29 June 1999, LawLex202200003688JBJ.

This clarification, introduced by Law No 2014-315 of 11 March 2014, marks the end of previous case law which held that actual seizure means seizure of allegedly infringing products or processes, and not seizure of advertising materials and price lists: Cass. com., 20 March 2007, LawLex202200001352JBJ.

Cass. com., 27 March 2019, LawLex202100006330JBJ.

Cass. com. 28 April 2004, LawLex202200003902JBJ.

Industrial Property Law

396. Seizure for infringement (saisie-contrefaçon)

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Sous parties

Les notions juridiques connexes

396. Seizure for infringement (saisie-contrefaçon)

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Sous parties

Les notions juridiques connexes

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