Le Tribunal de grande instance de Paris avait \u00e9t\u00e9 saisi par 3 associations politiques sous la forme des r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9s \u00e0 la suite du changement de d\u00e9nomination de l\u2019UMP.<\/p>\n
L\u2019association Mouvement R\u00e9publicain et Citoyen, l\u2019association F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Nationale des \u00c9lus Socialistes et R\u00e9publicain et l\u2019association G\u00e9n\u00e9ration R\u00e9publicain, consid\u00e9raient que le choix des termes \u00ab Les R\u00e9publicains \u00bb comme d\u00e9nomination sociale et \u00e0 titre de marque cr\u00e9ait un trouble manifestement illicite. En effet, les requ\u00e9rantes invoquaient que l\u2019appropriation de ces termes cr\u00e9e une situation de d\u00e9loyaut\u00e9 et de d\u00e9nigrement entre certains partis politiques r\u00e9publicains dont la d\u00e9nomination incluait ces termes<\/p>\n
De m\u00eame, elles invoquaient un dommage imminent, qui serait constitu\u00e9 par \u00ab la pr\u00e9emption de l\u2019usage par ce parti d\u2019un mot g\u00e9n\u00e9rique et de l\u2019usage abusif \u00e0 venir de l\u2019expression \u00bb<\/p>\n
Le TGI de Paris a rejet\u00e9 toutes les demandes des requ\u00e9rants et a constat\u00e9 que ni le trouble manifestement illicite ni le dommage imminent n\u2019\u00e9taient d\u00e9montr\u00e9s. La nouvelle d\u00e9nomination sociale de l\u2019UMP ainsi que les marques lui appartenant ont donc \u00e9t\u00e9 valid\u00e9es par le tribunal saisi<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Le Tribunal de grande instance de Paris avait \u00e9t\u00e9 saisi par 3 associations politiques sous la forme des r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9s \u00e0 la suite du changement de d\u00e9nomination de l\u2019UMP. L\u2019association Mouvement R\u00e9publicain et Citoyen, l\u2019association F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Nationale des \u00c9lus Socialistes et R\u00e9publicain et l\u2019association G\u00e9n\u00e9ration R\u00e9publicain, consid\u00e9raient que le choix des termes \u00ab Les R\u00e9publicains \u00bb […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":282,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_angie_page":false,"page_builder":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"annee":[65],"expertise":[29],"class_list":["post-1333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-le-cabinet","annee-65","expertise-propriete-intellectuelle"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1333"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1333\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1940,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1333\/revisions\/1940"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1333"},{"taxonomy":"annee","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/annee?post=1333"},{"taxonomy":"expertise","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/expertise?post=1333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}