Arguing that LIDL had breached its selective distribution network and that its brand image was being parasitized, PUMA first applied to the interim relief judge for a prohibitive injunction and provisional damages.

The judge rejected PUMA’s claims in an order dated October 16, 2013.

PUMA therefore initiated proceedings on the merits.

By judgment dated September 12, 2016, the Paris Commercial Court ordered LIDL to pay PUMA the sum of 200,000 euros on the grounds of unfair competition and/or parasitism, the Court considering in particular that LIDL’s sale of PUMA’s product damaged PUMA’s brand image. PUMA’s claim for damages exceeded 1,000,000 euros.

LIDL nevertheless appealed this decision, notably on the issue of brand image infringement.

In a ruling handed down on January 9, 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal overturned the judgment except insofar as it declared that the disputed products had been duly acquired by LIDL, and, ruling again, dismissed all PUMA France’s claims and ordered it to pay LIDL the sum of 30,000 euros under article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

PUMA appealed to the French Supreme Court, and in a ruling dated November 18, 2020, the Court of Cassation partially overturned the appeal ruling.

The parties therefore found themselves before a new Court of Appeal, which considered that the marketing of Puma products by Lidl had been carried out in such conditions as to be characteristic of acts of unfair and parasitic competition, and were acts that undermined Puma’s brand image, i.e., the reputation of Puma products.

In its decision of October 19, 2022, the Court of Appeal confirmed LIDL’s order to pay PUMA the sum of 200,000 euros in this respect, and ordered LIDL to pay 20,000 euros on the basis of article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.