list of contributors - GALA

The Court held the trademark was used without justification and that illegal
profit was made by such use of the trademark of Q. The fact that the
respondent had in the meantime ceased the selling of these T-shirts did not
make the claim inadmissible. The Court argued that the prohibition to sell
constituted the sanction foreseen and would serve as means to prevent future
violation.
The Company N. was condemned to cease the selling, such ceasing to begin
15 days after notification of the judgment.
Topic: Unfair competition – Law of July 30, 2002
Who: Luxembourg Court of Appeal (Cour de Cassation)
When: November 11, 2004
Where: Luxembourg
What Happened: The Cour de Cassation had to deal with a judgment rendered by the previous
instance concerning the application of the Law of July 30, 2002 concerning
unfair competition. More specifically, the previous instance had permitted a
certain professional lobbying entity to file a claim to cease and desist on the
sole ground that a situation of competition between the claiming federation
(an entity recognized to seize court under the Law of July 30, 2002) and the
respondent.
The Court of Appeal held that this condition was insufficient to permit the
claimant to request cease and desist actions and judged the verdict of the
previous instance violated the Law of July 30, 2002, as the requirements for a
cease and desist claim had not been fulfilled.