Cass. 2e civ., 19 octobre 1988, n° 87-14.727

Cass. com., 18 octobre 1988, n° 86-16.029

Un gérant non-salarié de succursale de maison d'alimentation ne bénéficie pas des dispositions plus favorables du Code du travail relatives au licenciement des salariés lorsque les parties ont accepté les stipulations de la convention collective nationale des maisons d'alimentation, d'approvisionnement à succursales et gérants mandataires.

CA Versailles, 5e ch. sect. 2, 18 octobre 1988, n° 7117-87

Cass. 1re civ., 18 octobre 1988, n° 86-14.885

Cass. com., 18 octobre 1988, n° 87-11.881

The obligation for the licensee to immediately discontinue use of the trademarks, trade names and know-how following the expiration of the licence is justified by the need to preserve the conditions necessary to the transfer of technical knowledge covered by intellectual property rights, even if doing so causes the licensee's removal from the market.

Prohibiting the licensee from using product formulas and manufacturing methods for purposes other than the manufacture of the contractual products for as long as these formulas have not been disclosed is not contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU insofar as this measure is intended to protect the licensors' rights over the know-how, of which the commercial value depends largely upon whether it is kept secret.

Requiring the licensee to refrain from manufacturing and distributing competing products without prior approval from the licensor is lawful as this allows the licensor to ensure the use of its know-how for its products only as well as to ensure that its know-how will be optimally used by the licensee.

The obligation imposed on the licensee to manufacture and to pack the products strictly in accordance with the methods furnished by the licensor, and to make no alternations in the formulae and methods of manufacture without prior written consent, is justified in order to preserve the reputation of the trademark and transport security and usability for purchasers.

Prohibiting the licensee from granting sublicences without prior written approval from the licensor does not constitute a restriction on competition, such as would be referred to in Article 101(1) TFEU.

EC, October 13, 1988, No 88-563

La préservation des conditions nécessaires au transfert des connaissances techniques faisant l'objet de droits de propriété intellectuelle justifie l'obligation faite au licencié de cesser immédiatement d'utiliser les marques, noms commerciaux et savoir-faire à l'expiration de l'accord de licence même si celle-ci entraîne sa disparition du marché.

L'interdiction pour le licencié de concéder des sous-licences sans l'accord préalable et écrit du donneur de licence ne constitue pas une restriction de concurrence visée par l'article 101 TFUE, paragraphe 1.

L'obligation faite au licencié d'appliquer les méthodes de fabrication et de conditionnement communiquées par le donneur de licence et de ne pas modifier les formules et méthodes de fabrication sans l'accord de ce dernier est justifiée afin de préserver la bonne réputation de la marque et la sécurité de transport et d'utilisation des produits pour les acheteurs.

L'interdiction faite au licencié d'utiliser les formules et méthodes de fabrication des produits à d'autres fins que celle de fabriquer les produits sous licence aussi longtemps que ces formules ne sont pas divulguées n'est pas contraire à l'article 101 TFUE, paragraphe 1, dans la mesure où elle est destinée à protéger le droit détenu par le donneur de licence sur le savoir-faire dont la valeur commerciale réside très largement dans son caractère secret.

L'obligation faite au licencié de ne pas fabriquer puis distribuer des produits concurrents aux produits sous licence sans l'accord préalable du donneur de licence est licite car elle permet à celui-ci de s'assurer de l'utilisation de son savoir-faire pour ses seuls produits et de son exploitation optimale par le licencié.

CCE, 13 octobre 1988, n° 88-563

La renonciation par l'employeur à la clause de non-concurence ne peut intervenir en cours d'instance, soit plus de quinze jours après la notification de la rupture.

Le versement de la contrepartie financière à la clause de non-concurrence imposée au VRP n'est pas soumis aux conditions exigées pour le bénéfice de l'indemnité de clientèle.

CA Amiens, 2e ch. soc., 13 octobre 1988, n° 2281-87

Cass. soc., 13 octobre 1988, n° 87-42.816

Cass. 3e civ., 12 octobre 1988, n° 87-14.228

Cass. 3e civ., 12 octobre 1988, n° 86-16.101

Cass. 3e civ., 12 octobre 1988, n° 87-11.174

Cass. com., 11 octobre 1988, n° 87-12.791

A cooperation agreement between competing tyre manufacturers which represent widely-used trademarks, that is executed in view of developing a new run-flat tyre system is in the consumers' interest insofar as, in coming years, it enables the introduction of a safer, run-flat tyre onto the market.

Where the partners hold strong market positions, namely more than 20%, the duration of a joint research project must strictly be limited to the length of time absolutely necessary to implement the program in order to be exempt from Article 101(3) TFEU.

A cooperation agreement entered into by two tyre manufacturers of which the objective is to develop a unique tyre safety system as well as to transfer the exploitation of patents and know-how to a common entity in which each party holds an equal interest, restricts competition insomuch as the operators no longer develop independent, competitive run-flat tyre systems and forbid one another from individually granting licences to outside parties.

A cooperation agreement between competing tyre manufacturers which represent widely-used trademarks, that is executed in view of developing a new, more secure system, is in the consumers' interest insofar as, in coming years, it enables the introduction of a safer, run-flat tyre onto the market.

Granting exclusive know-how licences and patents to a joint undertaking, while prohibiting the grant of sublicences without prior approval from the two parent companies, is anticompetitive in nature.

EC, October 11, 1988, No 88-555

Within the meaning of Article 101(3) TFEU, cooperation between the manufacturer of technical precision ceramics and an electrical engineering company within a joint undertaking, coupled with mutual exclusive territorial licence commitments concerning their complementary technologies, fosters the preservation of the environment insofar as it allows for faster and cheaper development of fundamental technological innovations that favors the use of electrical motor vehicles.

Cooperation within a joint undertaking between a manufacturer of technical precision products and an electrical engineering company, and mutually exclusive territorial licence commitments relating to the use of their complementary technologies, qualify for an exemption insofar as they allow for faster and cheaper development of a fundamental technological innovation which preserves the environment.

Mutually exclusive territorial licence commitments relating to the use of their complementary technologies between a manufacturer of technical precision goods and an electrical engineering company within a joint undertaking, allow for the faster and cheaper development of a fundamental technological innovation.

Granting an exclusive technology licence to the benefit of undertakings established in Japan and the Middle East is anticompetitive in nature if it succeeds in discouraging exportations towards EU territories wherein the licensor holds no intellectual property rights.

EC, October 11, 1988, No 88-541

Un accord de coopération entre fabricants concurrents de pneumatiques représentant des marques très utilisées en vue du développement d'un nouveau système de sécurité profite aux utilisateurs dans la mesure où il permet d'imposer, en quelques années, l'introduction sur le marché d'un pneu plus sûr en cas de panne.

Un projet de recherche commune doit, afin de bénéficier de l'exemption de l'article 101, paragraphe 3, TFUE, être strictement limité à la durée indispensable à l'exécution du programme lorsque les partenaires occupent une position forte sur le marché, soit plus de 20 %.

L'accord de coopération entre deux producteurs de pneumatiques ayant pour objet le développement d'un système unique de sécurité et le transfert de l'exploitation des brevets et savoir-faire à une unité commune composée paritairement, restreint la concurrence dans la mesure où ces opérateurs renoncent au développement de systèmes indépendants et concurrents et s'interdisent de concéder individuellement les licences à des tiers.

L'octroi de licences exclusives de savoir-faire et de brevet à une entreprise commune, assorties d'une interdiction de concéder des sous-licences sans l'accord préalable des deux entreprises fondatrices, présente un caractère restrictif de concurrence.

CCE, 11 octobre 1988, n° 88-555

La coopération d'un fabricant de produits de précision en céramique à usage industriel et d'une entreprise de matériel électrique au sein d'une entreprise commune assortie d'engagements mutuels de licence territoriale exclusive d'utilisation de leurs technologies complémentaires, contribue à la protection de l'environnement, au sens de l'article 101, paragraphe 3, TFUE, dans la mesure où elle permet le développement plus rapide et plus économique d'une innovation technologique fondamentale favorisant l'utilisation des voitures électriques.

La coopération d'un fabricant de produits de précision et d'une entreprise de matériel électrique au sein d'une entreprise commune assortie d'engagements mutuels de licence territoriale exclusive d'utilisation de leurs technologies complémentaires, bénéficie de l'exemption dans la mesure où elle permet le développement plus rapide et plus économique d'une innovation technologique fondamentale plus écologique.

Les engagements mutuels de licence territoriale exclusive d'utilisation de leurs technologies complémentaires pris par un fabricant de produits de précision et une entreprise de matériel électrique réunis au sein d'une entreprise commune permettent le développement plus rapide et plus économique d'une innovation technologique fondamentale.

Un accord de licence exclusive de technologie au profit d'entreprises établies au Japon ou au Moyen-Orient présente un caractère restrictif de concurrence dès lors qu'il décourage les exportations vers les pays de l'Union où le donneur de licence ne dispose pas de droits de propriété intellectuelle.

CCE, 11 octobre 1988, n° 88-541

La réunion d'établissements de crédit au sein d'un GIE, destiné à promouvoir la carte bancaire, ne saurait être considérée en soi comme une pratique anticoncurrentielle.

La faculté ouverte à un GIE d'accepter ou de refuser une adhésion sans donner de motif, alors que l'appartenance à ce groupement constitue une condition d'accès au marché, constitue une entente illicite.

Le protocole d'accord signé par des opérateurs concurrents réunis au sein d'un GIE qui prévoit une tarification minimum pour certaines de leurs prestations ne reposant sur aucun critère objectif, constitue une action concertée illicite.

Conseil Conc., 11 octobre 1988, n° 88-D-37

Cass. com., 11 octobre 1988, n° 86-17.170

Cass. 1re civ., 11 octobre 1988, n° 87-11.198

L'agence qui doit mettre en œuvre une stratégie de communication intégrée aux politiques et objectifs de l'annonceur manque à son obligation de moyens en concevant et réalisant deux films publicitaires qui transmettent à la clientèle de ce dernier une image peu attrayante.

CA Paris, 25e ch. B, 7 octobre 1988, n° 18606-85

An undertaking may be refused if the full price increase of 25% is dependent on a new factory going into production, compliance with which cannot be verified by the Commission.

An undertaking may be refused if the price increases offered are far less than those needed to eliminate injury and take effect over several years.

The volume of imports is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in order to determine injury.

A combined assessment of the effects of imports is made where the dumped products come from different countries in order to enable the European authorities to take appropriate action against all exporters, even if the volume of each individual exporter's export is relatively small [N.B. decision based on an anti-dumping regulation replaced by Regulation No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009].

For imports from a non-market economy country, recourse should be made to the constructed value only where the circumstances make it unreasonable to use the domestic price to determine the normal value of the product.

CJEC, 5th chamber, October 5, 1988, No 294-86

Importers associated with exporters of which the products are affected by anti-dumping duties may challenge the regulation imposing these duties where the export price has been calculated on the basis of their selling prices on the European market.

The fact that a European producer is facing difficulties attributable in part to causes other than the dumping is not a reason for depriving that producer of all protection against the injury caused by the dumping.

The prices of the imports, which were an average of 6% lower than those of the European industry during the period covered by the investigation, have practically no effect on general price levels given the limited volume of these imports.

Liability for injury may be attributed to the importer which is the perpetrator of dumping even if the losses due to the dumping are merely part of more extensive injury attributable to other factors.

Injury caused to the European industry may be established with reference to a period in which the sales of European producers increased in absolute terms, insofar as these sales did not maintain their relative share in a market which was expanding very rapidly.

Since the list of the relevant economic factors mentioned in Article 3(5) of the anti-dumping regulation is merely indicative, the European institutions may consider that the most relevant factors contained therein are in themselves a sufficient basis for forming a judgment.

The injury caused to the European industry must be determined by reference to a comparison between the prices of imported products and the prices of products of European origin which are like products not at their real level but at the level they would have reached without the dumping, where they suffered from downward pressure for a long period that led to their depreciation by reason of dumping.

Where domestic prices are not representative, the European institutions are free to determine the normal value on the basis of the export price to a non-Member State or by applying the constructed value method [N.B. decision given on the basis of Anti-Dumping Regulation No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984].

The normal value must be primarily determined from the price actually paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade and the institutions enjoy a margin of discretion regarding the order of application of the other two subsidiary methods of calculation.

When calculating the export price on the basis of the price charged when the product was sold to the first independent purchaser in the EU, a 3% profit margin, deducted from the margin of independent importers, may be retained as adjustment factor.

The threshold of 5% of exports below which domestic sales cannot be used to determine the normal value of a product, must be calculated by reference to the volume of sales of each model of product where considerable differences exist between the characteristics of the various models.

The normal value cannot be determined by reference to the selling price between a manufacturer and its distributor with which it forms a single economic entity, insofar as it must be based on the price paid by an independent purchaser.

CJEC, 5th chamber, October 5, 1988, No 277-85

The production costs of European undertakings constitute confidential data.

CJEC, 5th chamber, October 5, 1988, No 250-85

Activities performed by members of a community based on religion which exercises commercial activities constitute economic activities insofar as the fact for the community to provide for the material needs of its members, including pocket-money, may be regarded as the indirect quid pro quo for their work.

Articles 56 and 57 TFEU do not cover the situation where a national of a Member State goes to the territory of another Member State and establishes his principal residence there in order to provide or receive services for an indefinite period.

CJEC, 6th chamber, October 5, 1988, No 196-87

Although compact electronic typewriters and professional electronic typewriters do not fall under the same Nimexe code, they are part of the same market in view of the trend towards the construction of electronic typewriters capable of catering for the same needs.

The European companies which imported dumped products may be considered as European producers where these imports concern  few models, all of them at the lower end of the range, and are made to fill gaps in their range of products.

CJEC, 5th chamber, October 5, 1988, No 106-86

The differences between the dates on which the information was given to the various companies do not constitute a breach of the right to a fair hearing where they stem from the practical impossibility of organizing meetings of all the companies concerned at the same time or of giving them all the information simultaneously.

Since the list of factors for assessing the European industry's situation as set forth in the anti-dumping regulation is merely indicative, the institutions are free to take the view that the most relevant factors contained therein are in themselves a sufficient basis for forming a judgment.

CJEC, 5th chamber, October 5, 1988, No 273-85

CJCE, 5e ch., 5 octobre 1988, n° 301-85

Les coûts de production des entreprises européennes constituent des données confidentielles.

CJCE, 5e ch., 5 octobre 1988, n° 250-85

Le décalage entre les dates auxquelles les informations ont été fournies aux différentes sociétés ne constitue pas une violation des droits de la défense dès lors qu'il résulte de l'impossibilité pratique d'organiser des réunions regroupant simultanément toutes les sociétés intéressées ou de leur donner simultanément toutes les informations.

La liste des éléments d'appréciation de la situation de l'industrie de l'Union, tels qu'ils sont prévus dans le règlement antidumping, étant simplement indicative, il demeure loisible aux institutions d'estimer que les éléments les plus pertinents y figurant constituent déjà une base de jugement suffisante.

Décisions de justice rendues en 1988 - Page 6