Français
Even in the presence of clear acts of unfair competition, judges cannot issue a general prohibition on carrying out an activity. The sanction must be strictly proportionate and limited to the established unfair or parasitic conduct. In censuring an overly broad prohibition on the marketing of agricultural GPS interfaces, the Court of Cassation forcefully reiterates that freedom of trade and industry remains the principle, and prohibition the exception.
Court of Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber, 28 January 2026, No. 23-20.245
Optima Concept had designed an electronic agricultural spraying system based on a master unit (OC 800 or REB 3), to which various GPS guidance devices could be connected. The companies GPS Géomatique Agricole (2GA) and Innov GPS, managed by Mr [U], had developed and marketed an interface enabling their own GPS systems to be connected to the Optima Concept box.
Considering that these interfaces did not comply with the applicable regulations and were not marketed fairly, Optima Concept sued its competitors for unfair competition.
The Douai Court of Appeal prohibited them, under penalty, from selling any interface that could connect a GPS system to OC 800 or REB 3 boxes.
The Court of Cassation censured this prohibition in principle.
The prohibition on carrying out an activity is a strictly regulated exception
The Commercial Chamber first recalled a fundamental principle directly linked to the law of 2 and 17 March 1791 and to freedom of competition:
“It follows from these texts and principles that a prohibition on exercising an activity imposed by a judge must be limited to unfair or parasitic behaviour. ”
In other words, even when misconduct has been established, the judge cannot neutralise the economic activity itself. He can only restrict its exercise to the exact extent of the unlawful acts observed.
An overly broad prohibition, and therefore unlawful
To justify the general prohibition, the Court of Appeal had relied on two factors:
– the non-compliance of certain interfaces with the decree of 18 December 2008 on the control of sprayers;
– the use of misleading commercial references, likely to create confusion with Optima Concept’s products.
The Court of Cassation acknowledged the reality of these breaches, but censured the scope of the sanction. It criticised the Court of Appeal for banning all marketing of interfaces, including those that could have been offered under fair and compliant conditions:
“By imposing such a ban, when it could not prohibit […] the marketing, under conditions that ruled out any risk of confusion […] of interfaces that complied with this decree, the Court of Appeal violated the above-mentioned texts and principles. ‘
The sanction should therefore have been limited to the wrongful conduct alone, and not extended to the activity as a whole.
A cassation without referral, with a strictly redefined prohibition
The Court of Cassation ruled on the merits of the case itself, without referral.
It precisely reformulated the applicable prohibition:
’ There is reason to prohibit […] the sale of interfaces […] using commercial references that create a risk of confusion […] and the sale of such interfaces that do not comply with the decree of 18 December 2008. ”
Thus, the freedom to market GPS interfaces remains, provided that regulatory requirements are met and the market is not misled.
A landmark decision on the proportionality of sanctions
The ruling of 28 January 2026 does not provide a new solution. It serves as a welcome reminder that unfair competition never justifies an absolute ban on trading. The judge must always favour a targeted, proportionate sanction that is strictly necessary to put an end to the disturbance.
A company that is the victim of unfair competition must therefore refrain from seeking overly broad measures. The scope of the requested prohibition measure must be assessed with sufficient precision.
By Olivier Vibert, Solicitor at KBESTAN.