Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Belgium

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How

  • 646 Accesses

Abstract

As we will further see in the next section, there is not a single piece of legislation on the protection of trade secrets as such in Belgium, but there are several provisions of Belgian law which can be used against the misappropriation of trade secrets. These provisions do not provide for a uniform definition of trade secrets under Belgian law. In the absence of a uniform definition, guidance can nevertheless be sought at the international, European and national levels to determine the common features of the general concept of “trade secrets”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 2, Member States’ responses to initial trade secrets questionnaire, Belgium, p. 9.

  2. 2.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 370.

  3. 3.

    M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 13.

  4. 4.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, see WTO website: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm.

  5. 5.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements, OJ 2014, L 93, pp. 17-23.

  6. 6.

    For similar definition of “know-how”, see: Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 2010, L 102, pp. 1-7; Commission Regulation (EC) No 2659/2000 of 29 November 2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and development agreements, OJ 2000, L 304, pp. 7-12 (expired); Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ 2002, L 203, pp. 30-41 (expired).

  7. 7.

    Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ 2005, C 325, p. 7, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation 139/2004.

  8. 8.

    M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 14.

  9. 9.

    CFI, case T-353/94, Postbank v Commission, ECR 1996 II-921, pt 87.

  10. 10.

    CFI, case T-474/04, Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse v Commission, ECR 2007 II-4225, pt 65.

  11. 11.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, Belgium, pp. 5-6.

  12. 12.

    Belgian Penal Code of 8 June 1967, published in the Belgian OJ on 9 June 1867.

  13. 13.

    Belgian OJ, 22 August 1978.

  14. 14.

    Book VI CEL cancelled and replaced the Belgian Law of 6 April 2010 on market practices and consumers protection (see Law of 21 December 2013, Belgian OJ, 30 December 2013).

  15. 15.

    See Sect. 19.1.1 above.

  16. 16.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 369; M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 13.

  17. 17.

    Ghent Court of appeal, 18 February 2004, D.C.C.R., 2005, p. 67.

  18. 18.

    Ghent Court of appeal, 30 March 2009, D.A.O.R., 2009, p. 180.

  19. 19.

    M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 14.

  20. 20.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1, Intellectual Property and Commercial Law—Country Report, Belgium, p. 6; D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 370.

  21. 21.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 2, Member States’ responses to initial trade secrets questionnaire, Belgium, pp. 9-11.

  22. 22.

    Belgian Penal Code of 8 June 1967, published in the Belgian OJ on 9 June 1867.

  23. 23.

    Supreme Court, 27 September 1943, Pas., I, p. 1043.

  24. 24.

    Supreme Court, 26 June 1975, Pas., I, p. 1043.

  25. 25.

    Liège Court of appeal, 2 September 2004, J.L.M.B., p. 508; Antwerp Court of appeal, 31 March 2009, I.C.I.P., 2009, p. 133; Brussels Court of appeal, 31 March 2009, I.C.I.P., 2009, p. 137.

  26. 26.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 3, “Criminal Law - Country Report”, Belgium, p. 9.

  27. 27.

    B. Tilleman, L’obligation au secret et à la discretion des administrateurs de sociétés, J.T., 1993, p. 549; A. Van Mensel, De bescherming van fabrieksgeheimen of technische know-how naar Belgisch recht, R.W., 1981-1982, col. 2001 sq.; M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 15.

  28. 28.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 3, Criminal Law—Country Report, Belgium, p. 11.

  29. 29.

    See for example Antwerp Court of appeal, 31 March 2009, I.C.I.P., p. 133.

  30. 30.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 3, Criminal Law—Country Report, Belgium, pp. 9-11.

  31. 31.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 10 September 2013, 2011/AR/3155, pp. 17-18, unpublished.

  32. 32.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 10 September 2013, 2011/AR/3155, p. 18, unpublished.

  33. 33.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 10 September 2013, 2011/AR/3155, p. 19, unpublished.

  34. 34.

    In this sense, see Article 6 AEC: “Any stipulation contrary to the provisions of this Act and of its implementing decrees is void insofar as it seeks to restrict workers’ rights or to worsen their obligations”.

  35. 35.

    Ghent Court of appeal, 19 February 2007, Ann. Prat. Comm., 2007, p. 425.

  36. 36.

    Belgian Civil Code of 21 March 1804, published in the Belgian OJ on 3 September 1807.

  37. 37.

    This provision echoes the duty of loyalty referred to in Article 17, 3°, b) AEC.

  38. 38.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 374.

  39. 39.

    See Constitutional Court, 19 September 2007, R.A.B.G., 2008, p. 382; which refers to CEDH, 16 December 1992, Niemietz c. Germany, pt 29 and CEDH, 16 April 2002, Société Colas Est e.a. c. France, pt 41; see on this decision M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure en saisie-contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, pp. 13 sq.

  40. 40.

    ECJ, case C-53/85, Akzo Chemie et Akzo Chemie UK v Commission, ECR 1986 I-1965, pt 28; ECJ, case C-36/92, SEP v Commission, ECR 1994 I-1911, pt 37.

  41. 41.

    See for example Article 458 of the Penal Code concerning the professional privilege for medical doctors, health officers, etc.

  42. 42.

    Article 491 of the Penal Code.

  43. 43.

    Article 504bis of the Penal Code.

  44. 44.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 8, Country Specific Questionnaires—Criminal Law, Belgium, pp.10-17.

  45. 45.

    Book IV CEL (“protection of competition”); see more in particular Articles IV.4, IV.42, IV.58, IV60 and IV.64.

  46. 46.

    See Article 11 of the Belgian Act of 15 June 2006 on public procurement and on certain contracts for works, supplies and services, Belgian OJ, 15 February 2007.

  47. 47.

    Article X.31 CEL.

  48. 48.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 2, Member States’ responses to initial trade secrets questionnaire, Belgium, p. 12.

  49. 49.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1, Intellectual Property and Commercial Law—Country Report, Belgium, p. 7.

  50. 50.

    Liège Court of appeal, 12 June 2008, I.R.D.I., 2008, p. 339.

  51. 51.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 2, Member States’ responses to initial trade secrets questionnaire, Belgium, pp. 12-13; Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1, Intellectual Property and Commercial Law—Country Report, Belgium, pp. 7-8.

  52. 52.

    In the broad sense of the word; see Sect. 19.2.1 above.

  53. 53.

    For an example of the elements which the trade secret owner must establish to get relief and, where possible, compensation, see Brussels Court of appeal, 10 September 2013, 2011/AR/3155, pp. 21 sq., unpublished.

  54. 54.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, Belgium, p. 1.

  55. 55.

    “Whoever claims the performance of an obligation must prove it. Reciprocally, one who claims to be released, must justify the payment or the fact which terminated its obligation”.

  56. 56.

    Belgian Judicial Code of 10 October 1967, published in the Belgian OJ on 31 October 1867.

  57. 57.

    “Each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges”.

  58. 58.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 10 September 2013, 2011/AR/3155, p. 23, unpublished.

  59. 59.

    “The judge may order any party to the procedure to produce the evidence available to it”.

  60. 60.

    “If there are precise, serious and strong presumptions that a party to the procedure or a third party has in its possession a document containing the proof of a relevant fact, the judge can order the production thereof”.

  61. 61.

    H. Boularbah, Requête unilatérale et inversion du contentieux, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2010, pp. 486 and following.

  62. 62.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 17 December 2008, One Solution/HP, 2008/AR/90, unpublished.

  63. 63.

    Liège Court of appeal, 8 March 2011, Lotus Bakeries/Brichard, 2010/RF/135, unpublished.

  64. 64.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p.285.

  65. 65.

    Supreme Court, 16 April 1984, Arr. Cass., 1983-84, p. 1097; Bull., 1984, p. 1036; Pas., 1984, I, p. 1036; R.W., 1984-85, p. 1986; Supreme Court, 28 April 1994, A.J.T., 1994-95, p. 267, note P. Hofstrossler, Arr. Cass., 1994, p. 427; Bull. 1994, p. 418; J.L.M.B., 1995, p. 5, P.&B., 1994, p. 158; Pas., 1994, I, p. 418; R. Cass., 1994, p. 324, note K. Broeckx; R.W., 1994-95, p. 812.

  66. 66.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 3, “Criminal Law - Country Report”, Belgium, p. 12.

  67. 67.

    Comm. Ghent (Pres.), 5 January 2015, C/14/00029, unpublished.

  68. 68.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, pp. 282-284.

  69. 69.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 2, Member States’ responses to initial trade secrets questionnaire, p. 15; Ghent Court of appeal, 1 December 2008, I.R.D.I., 2009, p. 58; Comm. Antwerp (Pres.), 28 April 2015, C/14/00079, pp. 15-16, unpublished; contra: the author Carl De Meyer who considers that the procedure of “descriptive seizure” should also be available for know-how for Belgian law to be compliant with the TRIPs agreement (Beschrijvend beslag en knowhow, in Liber Amicorum Ludovic De Gryse, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2010, pp. 117-129).

  70. 70.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 3, Criminal Law—Country Report, Belgium, p. 12.

  71. 71.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 2, Member States’ responses to initial trade secrets questionnaire, pp. 13-14; Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, pp. 1-2.

  72. 72.

    Comm. Ghent (Pres.), 5 January 2015, C/14/00029, unpublished.

  73. 73.

    Ghent Court of appeal, 9 February 2009, www.cass.be (not a trade secret case).

  74. 74.

    Antwerp Court of appeal, 27 September 2007, Ann. Prat. Comm., 2008, p. 527.

  75. 75.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Final Study, pp. 6-7, published at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/trade/201201-study_en.pdf.

  76. 76.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Final Study, pp. 6-7, published at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/trade/201201-study_en.pdf.

  77. 77.

    Despite Article 42 TRIPS which stipulates that “The procedure shall provide a means to identify and protect confidential information, unless this would be contrary to existing constitutional requirements”—yet, this Article is not directly applicable.

  78. 78.

    Supreme Court, 9 November 2012, www.cass.be: “When determining one’s rights and duties, everybody is entitled, pursuant to Article 6.1 ECHR, to benefit from the different guarantees provided for in that provision, including the right to a public handling of one’s case. This principle of publicity of the trial and the judgment can only be deviated from in case the party involved waives that right freely and unequivocally, and in conformity with national right” (free translation).

  79. 79.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, p. 3.

  80. 80.

    Brussels Appeal Court, 30 June 2010, J.L.M.B., 2011, p. 1185; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1074; O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium -Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p. 266.

  81. 81.

    Right for each party to be heard and to have access and to reply to all the documents submitted to the Court by the other party: ECHR, 18 February 1997, Nideröst-Huber/Switzerland, Publ. Eur. Court. H.R. 1997, I, p. 101; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1064; E. Brewaeys, Zakengeheim verdraagt geen tegenspraak, Juristenkrant, 2013, p. 7; Supreme Court 14 January 2005, Arr. Cass., 2005, n°24.

  82. 82.

    Supreme Court, 10 December 1976, Pas., I, p. 410.

  83. 83.

    The word “document” encompasses written documents but also drawings, pictures, etc.

  84. 84.

    This provision echoes Article 43 TRIPS.

  85. 85.

    This right to privacy also applies to professional relationships and legal entities: ECHR, 16 December 1992, Niemietz/Germany, Publ. Eur. Court. H.R. 1993, Series A, p. 251-B; ECHR, 16 April 2002, Société Colas Est et autres/France, Publ. Eur. Court. H.R. 2002, III, p.131; ECJ, case C-450/06, Varec/Belgische Staat, ECR 2008 I-581; Constitutional Court, 19 September 2007, case 118/2007, Belgian OJ, 31 October 2007 ; R.A.B.G., 2008, p. 382; Brussels Court of appeal, 9 December 2005, R.G. 2004/AR/174, www.juridat.be.

  86. 86.

    B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, pp. 1063-1066.

  87. 87.

    ECJ, case C-438/04, Mobistar/BIPT, ECR 2006 I-6675; ECJ, C-450/06, Varec/Belgische Staat, ECR 2008 I-581.

  88. 88.

    Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, p. 4; O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, pp. 267-268; D. Mougenot, Le secret des affaires et ses implications en droit judiciaire, I.R.D.I., 2009, p. 114; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1065; B. Allermeersch, Zakengeheim in burgerlijk proces en bewijs, in B. Allermeersch et al., Zakengeheim, Brugge, die Keure, 2012, p. 15; Brussels Court of appeal, 29 September 2006, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2006, p. 870; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, pp.1063-1064; Liège Court of appeal, 25 June 1998, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 1998, p. 246; Brussel Court of appeal, 7 November 2013, T.B.H., 2014, p. 808; Supreme Court, 20 February 1975, Pas., 1975, I, p. 633.

  89. 89.

    Supreme Court, 2 November 2012, J.T., 2013, p. 176, note E. De Lophem; T.B.O., 2013, p. 84, note T. Toremans and F. Dupon; Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1066.

  90. 90.

    ECJ, case C-360/09, Pfeiderer AF/Bundeskartellamt, ECR 2011 I-5161; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1065.

  91. 91.

    ECJ, case C-450/06, Varec/Belgische Staat, ECR 2008 I-581.

  92. 92.

    CFI, case T-271/03, Deutsch telekom, ECR 2008 II-477; Liège Appeal Court, 14 January 2000, J.L.M.B. 2001, p. 1289; M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 16.

  93. 93.

    Liege Court of appeal, 14 January 2000, J.L.M.B., 2001, p. 1289.

  94. 94.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 29 September 2006, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2006, p. 870; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, pp. 1063-1064; see also Liège Court of appeal, 25 June 1998, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 1998, p. 246.

  95. 95.

    Brussel Court of appeal, 7 November 2013, T.B.H., 2014, p. 808.

  96. 96.

    Supreme Court, 20 February 1975, Pas., 1975, I, p. 633.

  97. 97.

    B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1069.

  98. 98.

    D. Mougenot, Le secret d’affaires et ses implications en droit judiciaire, P&B, 2009, p. 116.

  99. 99.

    Comm. Antwerp, 20 December 20012, unpublished, cited in B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1065.

  100. 100.

    Supreme Court, 2 November 2012, J.T., 2013, p. 176; O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium -Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p. 268.

  101. 101.

    B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1065; Brussels Appeal Court, 30 June 2010, J.L.M.B., 2011, p. 1185 (with reference to ECHR, 20 February 1996, Doorson/Nederland).

  102. 102.

    Constitutional Court, 19 September 2007, case 118/2007, Belgian OJ 31 October 2007; R.A.B.G., 2008, p. 382.

  103. 103.

    Comm. Antwerp, 19 February 1987, Ann. Prat. Comm., 1987, p. 225; Comm. Ghent, 8 January 1993, Ann. Prat. Comm., 1993, p. 60; Brussels Appeal Court, 30 June 2010, J.L.M.B., 2011, p. 1185; Comm. Hasselt, 11 October 1996, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 1996, p. 293.

  104. 104.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, pp. 269-270.

  105. 105.

    Comm. Hasselt, 18 April 2001, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 2001, p. 284; Brussels Court of appeal, 30 June 2010, J.L.M.B., 2011, p. 1185.

  106. 106.

    Comm. Brussels, 14 May 2009, A/08/05692, unpublished, cited in B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1071.

  107. 107.

    Comm. Brussels, 3 December 2009, unpublished, cited in B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1072.

  108. 108.

    B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1072.

  109. 109.

    Supreme Court, 19 December 1994, R.W., 1994-95, note S. Van Overbeke.

  110. 110.

    B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1073; see or example Liège Court of appeal, 22 May 2001, R.R.D., 2001, p. 468.

  111. 111.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p. 273.

  112. 112.

    Comm. Tongeren (Pres.), 13 February 2007, R.D.J.P. 2009, p.110, note D. Mougenot, confirmed by Antwerp Court of appeal, 20 November 2007, R.D.J.P., 2009, p. 109, note D. Mougenot.

  113. 113.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 20 June 2008, I.C.I.P., 2008, p. 566.

  114. 114.

    Comm. Hasselt, 11 October 1996, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging, 1996, p. 293.

  115. 115.

    Antwerp Court of appeal, 6 February 2008, I.R.D.I., 2008, p. 173 (this judgment was annulled by the Supreme Court on grounds unrelated to the restrictions of use).

  116. 116.

    Antwerp Court of appeal, 24 May 2006, 2005/RK/276, unpublished; Antwerp Court of appeal, 5 September 2007 2007/RK/32, unpublished.

  117. 117.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 29 June 2009, R.W. 2012-13, p. 388; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1067

  118. 118.

    Antwerp Court of appeal, 20 November 2007, P&B, 2009, p. 110, note D. Mougenot; Ghent Court of appeal, 11 April 2011, R.W., 2012-13, p. 468; B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, pp. 1068;-1069.

  119. 119.

    D. Mougenot, Le charme discret des ‘petites’ mesures d’instruction, P&B, 2007, p. 245; Comm. Brussels, 14 May 2009, unpublished, cited in B. Allermeersch and W. Vandenbussche, Bewijs versus geheim in het aansprakelijkheidscontentieux, T.B.H., 2013, p. 1071.

  120. 120.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p. 269.

  121. 121.

    Liège Court of appeal, 6 March 2000, J.L.M.B., 2000, p. 1728; A. Kohl, Les mesures d’instruction, in X., Actualités et développements récents en droit judiciaire, Brussels, Larcier, 2004, pp. 207 sq.

  122. 122.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1,“Intellectual Property and Commercial Law – Country Report”, Belgium, p. 9; Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, p. 4

  123. 123.

    A. Verheyden and W. Derijcke, Secrets d’affaires et principe du contradictoire, in V. Cassiers and S. Gilson (coord.), L’entreprise et le secret, Brussels, Larcier, 2014, pp. 241-242.

  124. 124.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 20 June 2008, I.C.I.P., 2008, p. 566.

  125. 125.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 375.

  126. 126.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 4 December 2009, I.C.I.P., 2009, p. 513.

  127. 127.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 18 December 1998, I.R.D.I., 1999, p. 65; G. Glas, La saisie-description en matière de brevets en Belgique, in Jura Vigilantibus Antoine Braune, Bruxelles, Larcier, 1994, p. 193.

  128. 128.

    Preparatory works of the Acts on civil and procedural law aspects of the protection of intellectual property rights, DOC 51 2943/001 and 2944/001, Exposé des motifs, p. 67; F. de Visccher, La preuve des atteintes – Réforme de la saisie-description, in F. Brison (ed.), Sanctions et procedures en droits intellectuels, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2008, p. 166; B. Vandermeulen, Les mesures de confidentialité entourant les rapports de saisie-description, I.R.D.I., 2009, p. 361; Brussels Court of appeal, 24 March 2010, I.R.DI., 2010, p. 157.

  129. 129.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 4 December 2009, I.R.D.I., 2010, p. 146.

  130. 130.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p. 275.

  131. 131.

    Antwerp Court of appeal, 6 February 2008, I.R.D.I., 2008, p. 173.

  132. 132.

    Brussels Court of Appeal, 20 June 2008, I.C.I.P., 2008, p. 566.

  133. 133.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, see WTO website: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm.

  134. 134.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, pp. 376-377; Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, p. 2.

  135. 135.

    Liège Court of appeal, 12 June 2008, I.R.D.I., 2008, p. 339; M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 15.

  136. 136.

    Book XVII of the Belgian Code of Economic Law, Law of 26 December 2013, Belgian OJ, 28 January 2014.

  137. 137.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1, Intellectual Property and Commercial Law—Country Report, Belgium, pp. 8-9.

  138. 138.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1, Intellectual Property and Commercial Law—Country Report, Belgium, p. 9; O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, pp. 277-278.

  139. 139.

    Preparatory works of the Acts on civil and procedural law aspects of the protection of intellectual property rights, DOC 51 2943/001 and 2944/001, Exposé des motifs, p. 67.

  140. 140.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 378.

  141. 141.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 10 September 2013, 2011/AR/3155, unpublished.

  142. 142.

    O. Hottat, D. Kaesmacher, S. Lens, A. Mottet, D. Op de Beeck, P.Y. Thoumsin and B. Vanbrabant, Les travaux de l'AIPPI – Question 247 – Belgium - Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement, I.C.I.P., 2015, p. 280.

  143. 143.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 374.

  144. 144.

    Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market, April 2013, MARKT/2011/128/D, Appendix 1, Intellectual Property and Commercial Law—Country Report, Belgium, p. 10.

  145. 145.

    D. Kaesmacher, P. Maeyaert, A. Mottet, G. Philipsen, L. Ryckeboer and K. Neefs, AIPPI – Question 215 – Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law, I.C.I.P., 2010, p. 378; Supreme Court, 24 November 1932, Pas., 1933, I, p. 19; Supreme Court, 21 April 1978, R.W., 1978-1979, p. 1961; For an application in an intellectual property case, see Liège Court of appeal, 27 May 2007, I.C.I.P., 2007, p. 635; Hogan Lovells International LLP, Report on Trade Secrets for the European Commission, Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes), MARKT/2010/20/D, Appendix 3, Member States’ responses to second trade secrets questionnaire, pp. 4-5.

  146. 146.

    For your perfect information, licenses involving know-how are in principle subject to EU Regulation 316/2014 (see Sect. 19.1.2) which prevails over contractual arrangements.

  147. 147.

    The enforceability of a non-compete clause in an employer-employee relationship is subject to the payment of an economic compensation, must be limited in time and geographically and must relate to similar activities (see. Article 65 AEC).

  148. 148.

    Brussels Court of appeal, 20 June 2008, I.C.I.P., 2008, p. 566.

  149. 149.

    Supreme Court, 8 February 2001, R.G.D.C., 2004, p. 396.

  150. 150.

    Supreme Court, 17 September 1971, Pas., 1972, I, p. 28; Supreme Court, 17 October 2008, Arr. Cass., 2008, p. 2281.

  151. 151.

    G. De Leval, “Traité des saisies”, Fac. Dr. Liège, 1988, p. 13; P. Van Ommeslaghe, Abus de droit, fraude aux droits des tiers et fraude à la loi, R.C.J.B., 1976, p. 303 sq.; Supreme Court, 29 November 1962, Pas., 1963, I, p. 406.

  152. 152.

    As expressly reminded on the European Commission’s website on Trade Secrets, companies cannot invoke their trade secrets with the sole purpose to hide information on matters of public interest, such as public health, the environment or the safety of consumers (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/intellectual-property/trade-secrets/index_en.htm).

  153. 153.

    G. Van Dessel, La vie du droit. Contre l’abus procédural, J.T., 1997, pp. 680-682; Brussels Court of appeal, 24 September 1992, J.T., 1993, p. 361; Supreme Court, 31 October 2003, J.T., 2004, p. 135, note J.-F. van Drooghenbroeck; Supreme Court, 12 May 2005, R.A.B.G., 2005, p. 1683; L. Lamine, B. Schoenaerts and C. Vaes, Het tergend en roekeloos geding, Anvers, Intersentia, 2003, p. 4

  154. 154.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, 9870/14, General approach of the European Council adopted on 26 May 2014.

  155. 155.

    M. Buydens, La protection des secrets d’affaires et la procédure de saisie en matière de contrefaçon, Cah. Jur., 2011, p. 15.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Altius, Brussels, Belgium

    Sophie Lens

Authors
  1. Sophie Lens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Lens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Këllezi Legal, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  2. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  3. Kobel Avocat Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lens, S. (2017). Belgium. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46891-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46891-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46890-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46891-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation