4 ms·

to sum up the author of the news and recipient of the mail cannot read french correctly. It is a cease and desist letter on the use of a name «lebonXXX.fr» tha

by julie1 12y ago

to sum up the author of the news and recipient of the mail cannot read french correctly. It is a cease and desist letter on the use of a name «lebonXXX.fr» that in all due respect seem is a clear parasitism of a registred brand: it bears a similar name, it is related to the activity of the original site. And le boncoin.fr is registered @ l'INPI (national registration office of brands). In PI law, the infringement is about the confusion that results in the brand aka reputation and not on the use of an external API. It does not mean I support leboncoin, because I could not care less. @ least I don't appreciate people misleading others based on fake victimisation. Cher jonathan: en matière de droit «nul ne peut se prévaloir de ses propres turpitudes»

kubiiii 12y ago
You have a point, but even if the author rebranded his website, he would still violate the TOS when providing direct links to listings (and maybe when scraping the website but this is not clearly forbidden in the TOS). The discussion is mostly about this (I think).
- julie1 12y ago
  This would be another infraction :) And the author is misdirecting the readers by providing a document not related to the claim he makes (TOS infringement vs «droit des marques» infringement). EDIT/PS «nul ne peut se prévaloir de ses propres turpitudes» means that you cannot prevail your self of any wrongs if it is initially resulting from you not respecting the law. For instance if you build your company on a clearly fraudulent base (parasitism), you cannot claim for any reparation if you are shut down because it is a clear consequence of your actions. As a result, for the lawyer «faisceau de présomption valant preuve» his credibility in front of any juridiction would be voided.
  - kubiiii 12y ago
    This other infraction is also clearly mentionned in the lawyer letter.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Who cares about TOS? They're not binding to users in any way whatsoever, unless the users want it to be binding (i.e., as a contract to buy goods/services from them according to that ToS) The service can disable their accounts (if any exist) and block their IP's; the service can stop doing any business with them if they don't like the ToS; but the service can ask them to comply, but can't really demand that they comply with ToS, it's not a law nor a contract that they've agreed to.
jfoucher 12y ago
Hi Julie, I do not claim anything, nor do I victimize myself, I just stated the obvious namely that leboncoin.fr dosen't like my webapp. The letter is theirs. It might be possible to register a domain with INPI but not a wildcard like lebonXXX.fr You might be right though, which is why I complied and removed all mention of their brand name and any functionality related to it from my site as soon as I received their letter.
- julie1 12y ago
  Cher Jonahtan, You can call me Julien, I am a girl on the internet for it is more efficient to get answers to technical questions from geeks and it is funnier for trolling. The cease and desist is NOT about the app. It is about parasitism of the brand. The use of the API is secondary, but just a part of a proof in a dispute based on the claim of a brand that you are parasiting their immaterial actif called BRAND. But you don't seem to know how french law works: * the «raison sociale» of a company has not to be different from another company (ex: Mont Blanc = pen + desert + city), it has to be considered not too close on the naming and on the «secteur d'activité» to be considered parasitism. When you received your kit for funding your society (for instance @chambre de commerce), it is written black on white how the naming of a society should be done. Any brain dead accountant like mine even told me it is wise when choosing a «raison sociale» to first pay a (way too expensive) check into the INPI DB. * a brand at the opposite of a software is not protected at his divulgation, but at its «territorial» registering (hence INPI and strong advice to make a search at the creation that given your SIRET no company has a name close to yours because else, parasitisme is almost already proven) * the added presumption of an act are enough to be a proof (faisceau de présomption vaut preuve) * AND you are dumb enough to make money in the sillon of leboncoin. Constituting EXACTLY what the french law call parasitism. I don't support them, but you are legally dumb or dishonest. I would have respected you if : * either you had been smart (making money from leboncoin, but registering the brand in a country where leboncoin had not registered (tuvalu? trinidad & tobago)) (remember the territorial part of the brand) * either you were saying : I know I broke the law, but I think infringing (c) law is stupid because .... BTW brand are covered by an international convention, so it would have been the same if leboncoin was german, US, or russian.

by julie1 12y ago

kubiiii 12y ago

You have a point, but even if the author rebranded his website, he would still violate the TOS when providing direct links to listings (and maybe when scraping the website but this is not clearly forbidden in the TOS). The discussion is mostly about this (I think).

julie1 12y ago
This would be another infraction :) And the author is misdirecting the readers by providing a document not related to the claim he makes (TOS infringement vs «droit des marques» infringement). EDIT/PS «nul ne peut se prévaloir de ses propres turpitudes» means that you cannot prevail your self of any wrongs if it is initially resulting from you not respecting the law. For instance if you build your company on a clearly fraudulent base (parasitism), you cannot claim for any reparation if you are shut down because it is a clear consequence of your actions. As a result, for the lawyer «faisceau de présomption valant preuve» his credibility in front of any juridiction would be voided.
- kubiiii 12y ago
  This other infraction is also clearly mentionned in the lawyer letter.
PeterisP 12y ago
Who cares about TOS? They're not binding to users in any way whatsoever, unless the users want it to be binding (i.e., as a contract to buy goods/services from them according to that ToS) The service can disable their accounts (if any exist) and block their IP's; the service can stop doing any business with them if they don't like the ToS; but the service can ask them to comply, but can't really demand that they comply with ToS, it's not a law nor a contract that they've agreed to.

jfoucher 12y ago

Hi Julie, I do not claim anything, nor do I victimize myself, I just stated the obvious namely that leboncoin.fr dosen't like my webapp. The letter is theirs. It might be possible to register a domain with INPI but not a wildcard like lebonXXX.fr You might be right though, which is why I complied and removed all mention of their brand name and any functionality related to it from my site as soon as I received their letter.

julie1 12y ago
Cher Jonahtan, You can call me Julien, I am a girl on the internet for it is more efficient to get answers to technical questions from geeks and it is funnier for trolling. The cease and desist is NOT about the app. It is about parasitism of the brand. The use of the API is secondary, but just a part of a proof in a dispute based on the claim of a brand that you are parasiting their immaterial actif called BRAND. But you don't seem to know how french law works: * the «raison sociale» of a company has not to be different from another company (ex: Mont Blanc = pen + desert + city), it has to be considered not too close on the naming and on the «secteur d'activité» to be considered parasitism. When you received your kit for funding your society (for instance @chambre de commerce), it is written black on white how the naming of a society should be done. Any brain dead accountant like mine even told me it is wise when choosing a «raison sociale» to first pay a (way too expensive) check into the INPI DB. * a brand at the opposite of a software is not protected at his divulgation, but at its «territorial» registering (hence INPI and strong advice to make a search at the creation that given your SIRET no company has a name close to yours because else, parasitisme is almost already proven) * the added presumption of an act are enough to be a proof (faisceau de présomption vaut preuve) * AND you are dumb enough to make money in the sillon of leboncoin. Constituting EXACTLY what the french law call parasitism. I don't support them, but you are legally dumb or dishonest. I would have respected you if : * either you had been smart (making money from leboncoin, but registering the brand in a country where leboncoin had not registered (tuvalu? trinidad & tobago)) (remember the territorial part of the brand) * either you were saying : I know I broke the law, but I think infringing (c) law is stupid because .... BTW brand are covered by an international convention, so it would have been the same if leboncoin was german, US, or russian.