Abstract
The historic basis of the law against unfair competition in Belgium is Article 1382 Civil Code (the Code Napoléon) on tort liability. A merchant who violated, on purpose or by negligence, with a competitive aim, a right that a competitor derived from an industrial or commercial organisation committed an act of unfair competition.1 The law of “concurrence déloyale” was seen as a tool to protect the “business” (“fonds de commerce”) as the sum of the different elements used by a merchant to operate on the market: his trade name and trade marks, the design of his products, his goodwill, his contracts with suppliers and clients, his manufacturing processes and so on. The law against unfair competition was hardly distinct from the law of industrial property that was its inspiration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See Moreau, “Traité de la concurrence illicite” (1904).
See Gotzen, “Vrijheid van Beroep en Bedrijf & Onrechtmatige Mededinging” (1963).
See in particular Schricker & Francq, “La répression de la concurrence déloyale” tome II/1 (Belgique) (1974).
See supra note 2.
Court of Appeal, Brussels, June 7, 1983, 1983 Journal des Tribunaux (J.T.) 717 — Pepsi-Cola v. Coca-Cola; The Cour de Cassation (Cass.) confirmed this judgment: Cass., March 21, 1985, 1985 Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1001.
Stuyck, “Handelspraktijken” 228 (2nd ed. 2004).
see e.g. van den bergh, “discriminatie van een onafhankelijke afnemer,” 1993 jaarboek handelspraktijken 682.
Cass., January 7, 2000, 2001 Revue Critique de Jurisprudence belge (R.C.J.B.) 249, note Stuyck.
The author actually defends the view that antitrust law is the core of consumer law (see Stuyck, “EC Competition Law After Modernization: More than ever in the interest of Consumers,” 2005 Journal of Consumer Policy (J.C.P.) 1–30). The TPCA is definitely an example of overregulation. Some of its provisions (sales at a loss, joint offers, announcement of discounts, end of season sales...) have also been questioned in the light of the EC Treaty provisions on free movement of goods and services (see more in Wytinck, “De verenigbaarheid van de wet handelspraktijken met het EEG-recht,” in: Stuyck & Wytinck, “De nieuwe wet handelspraktijken” 176 et seq. (1992).
Cass., May 2, 1985, 1985 R.D.C. 631, note I.V.
Cass., October 17, 1997, 1998 R.C.J.B. 411, note Stuyck.
Directive 2005/29 of May 11, 2005, OJ L149/22, June 11, 2005.
Judgment of January 9, 2002, case 2/2002, Moniteur belge (Belgian Official Gazette, M.B.), March 19, 2002; see Puttemans, “Action en cessation, Cour d’Arbitrage et droits intellectuals: d’oł venons-nous, oł en sommes-nous, oł allons-nous?,” 2002 R.D.C. 812.
Cass. June 4, 1993, 1994 R.D.C. 610, note Stuyck & Pauwels, “Oever coëxistentie en samenloop tussen de vordering tot staken en de vordering ex contractu”.
See supra note 11.
Act of March 11, 1996 implementing the Data Base Protection Directive.
Act of May 20, 1975, M.B. September 5, 1975.
Act of January 10, 1990, M.B. January 26, 1990.
Court of Appeal, Brussels, October 2, 1996, 1997 R.D.C. 434 (the plaintiff alleged that his advertising campaign had been imitated by his competitor, who thus unfairly benefited from his investment, while the advertising agency held the copyright in that campaign).
In this last example there is indeed “concurrence”, i.e. the same facts form the object of two different actions. Article 14 (1) Benelux Design and Models Act expressly excludes the action for unfair competition for facts which only infringe a design or model (see also Benelux Gerechtshof (Benelux Court, BenGH) December 21, 1990, 1990–1991 Rechtskundig Weekblad (R.W.) 905).
See in particular Puttemans, “Droits intellectuals et concurrence déloyale” (2000).
M.B., March 19, 2002, (2nd ed.); this is a preliminary judgment, hence Article 96 is not annuled. The legislator will have to adapt the TPCA.
Cass., November 25, 1943 (two judgments), 1944 Pasicrisie belge (Pas.) I, 70 and 72.
Cass., June 4, 1993, 1994 R.D.C. 610, note Stuyck & Pauwels.
See further Stuyck, op.cit., 67–71.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stuyck, J. (2007). Belgian Report: Example of an Integrated Approach. In: Hilty, R.M., Henning-Bodewig, F. (eds) Law Against Unfair Competition. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71882-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71882-6_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71881-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71882-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)