{"id":2814,"date":"2016-04-07T21:17:15","date_gmt":"2016-04-07T20:17:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/la-cour-de-paris-confirme-l-interdiction-d-avocat-net\/"},"modified":"2018-07-02T20:43:19","modified_gmt":"2018-07-02T19:43:19","slug":"la-cour-de-paris-confirme-l-interdiction-d-avocat-net","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/la-cour-de-paris-confirme-l-interdiction-d-avocat-net\/","title":{"rendered":"La cour de Paris confirme l\u2019interdiction d\u2019Avocat.net"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/path><\/svg><\/p>\n

La Cour d'appel de Paris a confirm\u00e9 le jugement du 30 janvier 2015 du TGI de Paris qui avait fait interdiction \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Jurisystem d\u2019utiliser la d\u00e9nomination Avocat.net et lui avait ordonn\u00e9 de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la radiation du nom de domaine. <\/p>\n

Le tribunal consid\u00e9rait en effet qu\u2019elle faisait un usage de ce terme de nature \u00e0 cr\u00e9er une confusion dans l\u2019esprit du public. <\/p>\n

La cour, quant \u00e0 elle, a ordonn\u00e9 \u00e0 Jurisystem de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la r\u00e9trocession des noms de domaine Avocat.net et Iavocat.fr au Conseil national des barreaux ou, \u00e0 tout le moins, \u00e0 leur radiation. <\/p>\n

La cour rejette, par ailleurs, la demande de Jurisystem d\u2019utiliser provisoirement le nom de domaine Avocat.net, pr\u00eatant \u00e0 confusion, pour permettre la redirection vers son nouveau site.<\/p>\n

En savoir plus sur: http:\/\/www.legalis.net\/spip.php?page=breves-article&id_article=4960<\/p>\n

<\/path><\/svg><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Legalis<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Jurisprudences | Cour d'Appel de Paris, P\u00f4le 5 – Chambre 2, arr\u00eat du 18 d\u00e9cembre 2015 | Legalis.net<\/a><\/p>\n

nom de domaine – risque de confusion – usage – interdiction – avocat – pratique commerciale trompeuse – d\u00e9nomination illicite – retrocession – notation D\u00e9cision d\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9e \u00e0 la Cour : jugement du 30 janvier 2015- Tribunal de grande instance de Paris- 3\u00e8me chambre 3\u00e8me section- RG n\u00b013\/00332 Contradictoire Par mise<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.legalis.net\/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=4954<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\"La<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La Cour d'appel de Paris a confirm\u00e9 le jugement du 30 janvier 2015 du TGI de Paris qui avait fait interdiction \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Jurisystem d\u2019utiliser la d\u00e9nomination Avocat.net et lui avait ordonn\u00e9 de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la radiation du nom de domaine. Le tribunal consid\u00e9rait en effet qu\u2019elle faisait un usage de ce terme de
Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[76],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2814"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2814"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2814\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3550,"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2814\/revisions\/3550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/h2o-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}