Does using the trade name and flagship product of a competitor when you are a former employee fall under the freedom of trade and industry? No, according to the Lyon Court of Appeal. Insights and explanations from Sylvie Benoliel-Claux, lawyer at the Paris Bar.
The company Maldonn, operating under the trade name “SUN INSTITUTE,” sells beauty products, including the “SUN INSTITUTE KIT,” which consists of a wellness diffuser and a tanning lotion.
After discovering that a former employee had created a company called “SUN COSMETICS,” it sued him for unfair competition and parasitic competition.
She accuses him of founding a competing company under a similar name, marketing identical products using similar commercial practices, unfairly poaching her customers, and making disparaging remarks about her.
In his defense, the former employee argues that SUN INSTITUTE cannot claim expertise in tanning lotion, which is not protected by a patent, that the products sold remain different, and that there is no confusion between the SUN COSMETICS and SUN INSTITUTE trademarks given their commonality.
He points out that he is not bound by any non-competition clause with his former employer and that there is no evidence of customer poaching.
Practices deemed improper
The Court of Appeals admits that the practices of SUN COSMETICS are wrongful.
1. Son the risk of confusion, leading to a diversion of customers
➡️ Under the principle of free trade and free competition, there is no exclusive …
