Post by account_disabled on Jan 1, 2024 6:31:50 GMT 2
Anetwork. Electronic market Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union Chamber III of December in case C Brief history of the main dispute and the preliminary question It appears from the file submitted to the Court that Concurrence is engaged in the retail sale of electronic products intended for the general public through a store located in Paris France and on its website for online sales called concurrence.fr. On March Concurrence entered into a selective distribution agreement with Samsung entitled Elite Specialist.
Retailer for Samsungs flagship products namely the ELITE Country Email List range. This contract provided among other things a ban on the sale of the products in question on the Internet. Following the conclusion of that contract a dispute arose between the parties. Samsung accused Concurrence of breaching the selective distribution agreement by marketing ELITE range products on its website. For its part Concurrence challenged the legality of the contract clauses arguing among other things that they would not be applied uniformly to all distributors some of whom market the products in question on various Amazon websites without reaction from Samsung. By letter dated March.
Samsung notifiedcommercial relationship between the parties effective June . In April citing Samsungs refusal to deliver products from the ELITE range contrary to the commitments assumed Concurrence sued Samsung before the judge delegated to take provisional measures within the tribunal de commerce de Paris Commercial Court of Paris France. claims. This order was confirmed by the cour dappel de Paris Court of Appeal of Paris France ruling as a court of provisional measures by a decision of October . On December Concurrence again sued Samsung before the interim judge of the tribunal de commerce de Paris Commercial Court of Paris to declare that the ban on internet sales of the products.
Retailer for Samsungs flagship products namely the ELITE Country Email List range. This contract provided among other things a ban on the sale of the products in question on the Internet. Following the conclusion of that contract a dispute arose between the parties. Samsung accused Concurrence of breaching the selective distribution agreement by marketing ELITE range products on its website. For its part Concurrence challenged the legality of the contract clauses arguing among other things that they would not be applied uniformly to all distributors some of whom market the products in question on various Amazon websites without reaction from Samsung. By letter dated March.
Samsung notifiedcommercial relationship between the parties effective June . In April citing Samsungs refusal to deliver products from the ELITE range contrary to the commitments assumed Concurrence sued Samsung before the judge delegated to take provisional measures within the tribunal de commerce de Paris Commercial Court of Paris France. claims. This order was confirmed by the cour dappel de Paris Court of Appeal of Paris France ruling as a court of provisional measures by a decision of October . On December Concurrence again sued Samsung before the interim judge of the tribunal de commerce de Paris Commercial Court of Paris to declare that the ban on internet sales of the products.