Background
SARL Guyane pièces auto sued SAS Guyane pièces auto in the Mixed Commercial Court of Cayenne for unfair competition, alleging misappropriation of its corporate name and trade name. The plaintiff sought to stop the defendant from using the name “Guyane pièces auto.”
The defendant argued that the dispute concerned its “GPA Guyane pièces auto” trademark application and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Judicial Court of Fort-de-France under Article L. 716-5(II) of the Intellectual Property Code. The Mixed Commercial Court accepted that objection, and the Cayenne Court of Appeal affirmed, even though the defendant had fully withdrawn its trademark application on July 22, 2022.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal had wrongly applied Article L. 716-5(II). When the Mixed Commercial Court ruled on jurisdiction, the defendant owned no trademark in force whose exercise could be affected by the requested injunction. The unfair-competition claim therefore required neither examination of the existence or infringement of trademark rights nor application of intellectual-property rules specific to trademark validity or infringement.
The Court quashed the appellate decision without remand and decided the jurisdictional issue itself. Because the plaintiff’s claim rested solely on Article 1240 of the Civil Code and alleged misappropriation of its corporate name, the dispute was not subject to the Judicial Court’s exclusive trademark jurisdiction. The Court reversed the first-instance jurisdictional ruling and declared the Mixed Commercial Court of Cayenne competent to hear the case.
Key Takeaways
- A withdrawn trademark application does not create an operative trademark right capable of bringing a related unfair-competition claim within the Judicial Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
- A claim based solely on Article 1240 of the Civil Code for misappropriation of a corporate name remains within commercial-court jurisdiction when it requires no determination of trademark validity, infringement, or other trademark-specific rules.
- The Court of Cassation may quash without remand and resolve jurisdiction itself when the interests of the proper administration of justice justify doing so.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that merely having filed a trademark application does not transform a corporate-name unfair-competition dispute into a trademark case. Courts must examine whether a trademark right remains in force and whether resolving the requested relief would actually require applying trademark law.
The ruling prevents parties from shifting an otherwise ordinary commercial dispute into the specialized Judicial Court system by relying on a trademark application that has already been withdrawn.