Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-11-09; 1re Civ., 9 novembre 2022, pourvoi n° 21-10.242
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100751
Date: 2022-11-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR1109(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned a trademark licence contract.
The Irish company Inforad Limited (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) concluded with the Irish company Inforad Connect Limited (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) a contract under which the plaintiff could exploit a trademark. This contract was eventually terminated by defendant 1.
The plaintiff brought an action in contract against defendant 1, and an action in tort against defendant 1, defendant 1’s legal representative and former IT provider (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’ and ‘defendant 3’), the company that took over the exploitation of the licence (hereinafter ‘defendant 4’) and the legal representation of defendant 4 (hereinafter ‘defendant 5’).
The case was brought before the cour d’appel de Versailles (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which held that the French courts had no jurisdiction.
Regarding the action in contract, the Court of Appeal relied on Article 7(1)(a) on the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), which provides that ‘[a] person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’ (1). The Court of Appeal considered that this obligation was, in this case, the obligation to grant the exploitation rights of the trademark; it fell to defendant 1 to perform that obligation, and this defendant was domiciled in the Republic of Ireland.
Regarding the action in tort, the plaintiff claimed that the French courts had exclusive jurisdiction derived from the contractual jurisdiction it alleged. However, the Court of Appeal held that ‘considering the action in the contract was the principal action, only the connection allowing to link the action in tort to the action in the contract could be invoked – not the contrary’.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Regarding the action in the contract, it claimed that the obligation of defendant 1 had to be performed in France, since the trademark was to be exploited there. The plaintiff also claimed that the Court of Appeal should have examined if this obligation was not an obligation to provide intellectual and material services.
Regarding the action in tort, the plaintiff claimed that the French courts had a jurisdiction that was not derived from a contractual jurisdiction, and was grounded on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), which provides that ‘[a] person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State […] in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Court of Appeal should have examined if the contentious obligation was not an obligation to provide intellectual and material services, and if the French courts had a jurisdiction grounded on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Supreme Court added that Article 7 of this regulation does not provide for a hierarchy between actions in tort and actions in contract.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).