In a decision dated May 6, 2015, the Paris First Instance Court, ruling in emergency, held that neither manifestly unlawful disturbance nor eminent harm could be characterized by the use, by a political party, of the term “Les Républicains” as a denomination and as a trademark.
The Political Bureau of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP) party decided to replace the current denomination of the party, “UMP”, by the name “Les Républicains”.
Moreover, the advertising agency of the UMP party, the SAS Aubert Storch Associés Partenaires, registered three different semi-figurative trademarks: the “LES R Républicains” trademark registered under the national n° 14 4 132 642, the "R les Républicains" trademark under the national n°14 4 132 643 and a brand name "LES REPUBLICAINS" on March 17, 2015.
Three political associations and 140 physical persons filed a motion for a summary hearing against the UMP party and its advertising agency for the political party to be banned from adopting the name “Les Républicains” as a political party denomination, and for its advertising agency to be banned from granting the right to the UMP party of use of the trade name “Les Républicains”.
Regarding the manifestly unlawful disturbance resulting from the application of the Code of Civil Procedure’s 808 and 809 articles:
After full consideration of the arguments presented by the applicants, the Court found that no manifestly unlawful disturbance could be characterized, given that the documents that had been supplied did not demonstrate that a potential confusion could exist between the members of the Républicain family and the political party, and held that, in any event, the applicants brought no more than the proof of the damage relative to use of the denomination “Les Républicains”.
Regarding the manifestly unlawful disturbance resulting from the application of the trademarks law:
The applicants invoked the illicit nature of the trademarks on the basis of fraudulent deposit, misuse of the trademarks law’s aim, infringement of freedom of expression and infringement of intellectual property rights.
The Court rejected all these arguments and considered that the registered trademarks have a distinctive character.
Consequently, given that neither a manifestly unlawful disturbance nor an immediate damage has been established, the Court denied the claims of all the applicants.
