This judgement is more interesting in terms of proof of infringement than in terms of its substance.
On the merits, AZ FACTORY claimed rights to pyjama designs paying tribute to the late Alber ELBAZ, reproducing his sketches.
It should be noted that to justify the creative process, it referred to the deposit of the designs in the blockchain (blockchain anchoring recorded by a bailiff).
It is in the proof of counterfeiting that this judgement calls for attention:
The plaintiff observed the sale of counterfeit products at a market in the Alpes Maritimes, and had a summons drawn up in which the person in charge of the stand in question stated that ‘in March 2022, he had ordered 12 garments from VALERIA MODA… as evidenced by the purchase invoice… backdated to 18 November 2022’.
On the basis of this summons, AZ FACTORY had an infringement seizure carried out at VALERIA MODA’s premises.
However, the Court cancelled the seizure on the grounds that the writ of summons had been served on the distrainee at 10:20 a.m. and that the seizure report had been drawn up at the same time, i.e. 10:20 a.m., so that ‘it has not been established that a reasonable period of time was observed between the service of the writ of summons and the start of the seizure operations to enable the distrainee to know the reasons for the seizure carried out, nor the extent of the judicial commissioner’s prerogatives’.
The seizure was annulled, and the Court relied solely on the stand manager’s certificate, bearing only the words ‘ROBE’ and an undated invoice, to establish the acts of infringement, which seems to presage an appeal procedure….