Germany – Product Placement and Influencer Marketing

28 de noviembre de 2017

  • Alemania
  • Contratos
  • Medios de comunicación
  • Patentes y Marcas

“Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

The answer would be very simple.

It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

  1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
  2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
  3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
  4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
  5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
  6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
  7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

  1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
  2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
  3. Los límites cuantificativos.

Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

Los instrumentos para tutelarse

El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

La firma del contrato

Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

La elección correcta del contrato

Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

Evidencias sobre los clientes

En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

Practical tip

Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

  • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
  • a frustration or a force majeure.

There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

  • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
  • the good faith of the parties;
  • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
  • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
  • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

  • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
  • sudden;
  • unpredictable.

To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

  • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
  • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
  • a constant increase in turnover;
  • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
  • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
  • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
  • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
  • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

  • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
  • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
  • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

Compensation for a damage

The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

International law

The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

  • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
  • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

  1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
  2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
  3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
  4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

The author of this post is David Stolow.

Doing Business in Iran

6 de octubre de 2017

  • Irán
  • Contratos
  • Derecho Societario

“Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

The answer would be very simple.

It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

  1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
  2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
  3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
  4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
  5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
  6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
  7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

  1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
  2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
  3. Los límites cuantificativos.

Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

Los instrumentos para tutelarse

El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

La firma del contrato

Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

La elección correcta del contrato

Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

Evidencias sobre los clientes

En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

Practical tip

Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

  • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
  • a frustration or a force majeure.

There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

  • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
  • the good faith of the parties;
  • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
  • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
  • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

  • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
  • sudden;
  • unpredictable.

To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

  • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
  • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
  • a constant increase in turnover;
  • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
  • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
  • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
  • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
  • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

  • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
  • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
  • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

Compensation for a damage

The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

International law

The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

  • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
  • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

  1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
  2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
  3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
  4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

The author of this post is David Stolow.

Encyeh Sadr

Áreas de práctica

  • Derecho Aeronáutico
  • Contratos
  • Inversiones
Contáctanos Encyeh

Contacta con Encyeh





    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

    France – Abrupt termination of contract

    26 de septiembre de 2017

    • Francia
    • Contratos
    • Contratos de distribución
    • Litigios

    “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

    There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

    Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

    For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

    The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

    It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

    It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

    What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

    The answer would be very simple.

    It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

    In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

    In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

    In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

    However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

    And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

    So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

    The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

    I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

    Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

    The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

    Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

    However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

    1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
    2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
    3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
    4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
    5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
    6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
    7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

    Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

    En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

    Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

    Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

    En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

    En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

    En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

    En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

    En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

    La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

    En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

    La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

    La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

    Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

    Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

    De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

    La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

    Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

    1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
    2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
    3. Los límites cuantificativos.

    Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

    En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

    En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

    Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

    Los instrumentos para tutelarse

    El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

    La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

    Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

    Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

    En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

    Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

    La firma del contrato

    Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

    La elección correcta del contrato

    Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

    Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

    Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

    Evidencias sobre los clientes

    En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

    Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

    Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

    Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

    Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

    Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

    The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

    Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

    The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

    The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

    Practical tip

    Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

    The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

    In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
    You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

    If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

    Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

    This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

    Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

    Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

    The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

    The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

    It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

    There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

    • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
    • a frustration or a force majeure.

    There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

    The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

    What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

    The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

    A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

    If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

    • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
    • the good faith of the parties;
    • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
    • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
    • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

    What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

    The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

    The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

    • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
    • sudden;
    • unpredictable.

    To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

    • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
    • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
    • a constant increase in turnover;
    • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
    • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
    • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
    • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
    • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

    The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

    • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
    • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
    • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

    Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

    Compensation for a damage

    The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

    The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

    The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

    International law

    The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

    However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

    The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

    The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

    In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

    • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
    • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

    In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

    In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

    The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

    When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

    Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

    In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

    Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

    Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

    The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

    In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

    With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

    1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
    2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
    3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
    4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

    When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

    The author of this post is David Stolow.

    Marika Devaux

    Áreas de práctica

    • Arbitraje
    • Contratos
    • Reclamación de deudas
    • Contratos de distribución
    • Derecho Internacional Privado
    Contáctanos Marika

    Contacta con Marika





      Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
      Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

      To infinity and beyond – Perpetual contracts under Québec law

      9 de agosto de 2017

      • Canadá
      • Contratos
      • Litigios

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

      Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

      This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

      Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

      Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

      The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

      The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

      It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

      There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

      • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
      • a frustration or a force majeure.

      There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

      The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

      What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

      The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

      A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

      If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

      • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
      • the good faith of the parties;
      • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
      • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
      • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

      What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

      The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

      The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

      • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
      • sudden;
      • unpredictable.

      To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

      • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
      • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
      • a constant increase in turnover;
      • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
      • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
      • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
      • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
      • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

      The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

      • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
      • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
      • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

      Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

      Compensation for a damage

      The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

      The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

      The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

      International law

      The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

      However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

      The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

      The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

      In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

      • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
      • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

      In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

      In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

      The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

      When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

      Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

      In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

      Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

      Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

      The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

      In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

      With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

      1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
      2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
      3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
      4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

      When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

      The author of this post is David Stolow.

      Foreign currency regulations and price controls in Venezuela

      5 de abril de 2017

      • Venezuela
      • Contratos

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

      Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

      This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

      Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

      Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

      The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

      The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

      It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

      There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

      • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
      • a frustration or a force majeure.

      There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

      The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

      What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

      The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

      A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

      If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

      • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
      • the good faith of the parties;
      • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
      • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
      • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

      What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

      The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

      The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

      • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
      • sudden;
      • unpredictable.

      To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

      • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
      • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
      • a constant increase in turnover;
      • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
      • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
      • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
      • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
      • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

      The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

      • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
      • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
      • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

      Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

      Compensation for a damage

      The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

      The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

      The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

      International law

      The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

      However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

      The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

      The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

      In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

      • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
      • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

      In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

      In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

      The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

      When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

      Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

      In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

      Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

      Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

      The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

      In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

      With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

      1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
      2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
      3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
      4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

      When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

      The author of this post is David Stolow.

      Enforcement of foreign decisions and arbitral awards in Venezuela

      21 de marzo de 2017

      • Venezuela
      • Arbitraje
      • Contratos
      • Litigios

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

      Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

      This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

      Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

      Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

      The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

      The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

      It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

      There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

      • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
      • a frustration or a force majeure.

      There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

      The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

      What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

      The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

      A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

      If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

      • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
      • the good faith of the parties;
      • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
      • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
      • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

      What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

      The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

      The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

      • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
      • sudden;
      • unpredictable.

      To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

      • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
      • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
      • a constant increase in turnover;
      • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
      • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
      • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
      • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
      • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

      The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

      • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
      • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
      • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

      Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

      Compensation for a damage

      The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

      The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

      The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

      International law

      The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

      However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

      The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

      The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

      In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

      • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
      • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

      In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

      In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

      The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

      When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

      Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

      In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

      Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

      Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

      The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

      In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

      With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

      1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
      2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
      3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
      4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

      When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

      The author of this post is David Stolow.

      Null contract of international sale of goods. Which Jurisdiction?

      11 de julio de 2016

      • Italia
      • Derecho internacional
      • Contratos
      • Comercio internacional

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

      Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

      This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

      Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

      Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

      The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

      The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

      It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

      There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

      • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
      • a frustration or a force majeure.

      There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

      The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

      What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

      The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

      A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

      If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

      • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
      • the good faith of the parties;
      • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
      • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
      • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

      What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

      The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

      The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

      • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
      • sudden;
      • unpredictable.

      To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

      • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
      • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
      • a constant increase in turnover;
      • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
      • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
      • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
      • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
      • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

      The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

      • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
      • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
      • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

      Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

      Compensation for a damage

      The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

      The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

      The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

      International law

      The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

      However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

      The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

      The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

      In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

      • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
      • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

      In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

      In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

      The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

      When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

      Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

      In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

      Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

      Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

      The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

      In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

      With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

      1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
      2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
      3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
      4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

      When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

      The author of this post is David Stolow.

      China Contract – Jurisdiction, Arbitration and applicable law

      10 de mayo de 2016

      • China
      • Derecho internacional
      • Contratos

      “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

      There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

      Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

      For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

      The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

      It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

      It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

      What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

      The answer would be very simple.

      It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

      In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

      In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

      In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

      However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

      And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

      So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

      The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

      I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

      Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

      The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

      Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

      However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

      1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
      2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
      3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
      4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
      5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
      6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
      7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

      Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

      En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

      Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

      Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

      En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

      En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

      En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

      En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

      En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

      La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

      En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

      La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

      La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

      Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

      Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

      De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

      La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

      Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

      1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
      2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
      3. Los límites cuantificativos.

      Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

      En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

      En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

      Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

      Los instrumentos para tutelarse

      El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

      La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

      Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

      Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

      En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

      Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

      La firma del contrato

      Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

      La elección correcta del contrato

      Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

      Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

      Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

      Evidencias sobre los clientes

      En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

      Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

      Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

      Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

      Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

      Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

      The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

      Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

      The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

      The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

      Practical tip

      Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

      The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

      In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
      You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

      If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

      Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

      This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

      Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

      Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

      The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

      The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

      It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

      There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

      • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
      • a frustration or a force majeure.

      There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

      The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

      What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

      The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

      A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

      If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

      • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
      • the good faith of the parties;
      • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
      • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
      • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

      What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

      The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

      The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

      • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
      • sudden;
      • unpredictable.

      To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

      • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
      • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
      • a constant increase in turnover;
      • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
      • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
      • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
      • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
      • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

      The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

      • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
      • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
      • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

      Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

      Compensation for a damage

      The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

      The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

      The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

      International law

      The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

      However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

      The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

      The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

      In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

      • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
      • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

      In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

      In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

      The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

      When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

      Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

      In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

      Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

      Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

      The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

      In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

      With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

      1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
      2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
      3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
      4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

      When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

      The author of this post is David Stolow.

      Roberto Luzi Crivellini

      Áreas de práctica

      • Arbitraje
      • Contratos de distribución
      • Comercio internacional
      • Derecho Internacional Privado
      • Derecho Inmobiliario
      Contáctanos Roberto

      Contacta con Roberto





        Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
        Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

        China – Sales contract 

        11 de abril de 2016

        • China
        • Contratos

        “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

        There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

        Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called «Influencer Marketing», the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

        For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

        The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

        It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

        It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

        What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

        The answer would be very simple.

        It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

        In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

        In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

        In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

        However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

        And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

        So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

        The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

        I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

        Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

        The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

        Poland has recently become quite famous for its skilled and resourceful IT specialists. Each year thousands of new computer engineers (programmers, developers, testers, designers etc.) enter into the market, warmly welcomed by domestic and multinational companies. A big part of these young talents open their own firm or business as free lancers developing software for clients from European countries as well as from US, Canada, Japan, China, etc.

        However, companies who want to cooperate with these partners and assign software development to a Polish IT company or freelancer should be aware that the copyright law in Poland is very strict, as it mainly protects the creator and not the client. Therefore, to be on a safe side, it is better to follow these 7 basic rules:

        1. Never start cooperation with an IT specialist or an IT company without a formal agreement. And I mean a real agreement, in a written form, with signatures of persons who can validly contract on behalf of the companies. The form is very important because – under Polish law – copyrights transfer and exclusive license agreements not fulfilling form conditions are null and void. Moreover, if there is no agreement, Polish copyright rules will apply to all intellectual property matters.
        2. Please remember that software is a creation protected by copyright law. Therefore you should consider whether you want to acquire the entire intellectual property rights or you just need a license. If you need a full IP transfer, you need to put it expressly in the agreement; otherwise you will only get a non-exclusive licence. And these, in several cases, will not be useful from a business point of view. If a license is enough, it is advisable to agree if it will be exclusive or non-exclusive.
        3. When drafting an IP clause, be detailed and clear. If you want to be able to decompile and disassembly the binary code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to be able to introduce modifications to the source code, specify it in the IP clause. If you want to sublicense the software, specify it in the IP clause. The IP clause shall contain the description of any way you want to use the software, whether on mobile devices or on personal computers, any other electronic device or via internet (e.g. cloud computing). And believe me, when I write «specify it in the IP clause» it means that you really, really have to put it there. Otherwise it will be null and void and you may face a situation where your smart IT engineer, after getting paid, will sue you for the IP infringement.
        4. Remember that you should indicate the timeframe and the geographical scope of the license or IP transfer. If you do not specify it expressly in the agreement, you will only be entitled to a 5-year license, automatically expiring afterwards.
        5. Draft carefully a clause related to termination of the agreement. Under Polish law the licensor may terminate the license agreement granted for an indefinite period of time upon 1-year notice. If you do not want to find yourself in a situation where you lose the software IP rights in the middle of a big project, make sure that from the very beginning you are on a safe side.
        6. Make sure that your partner is obliged to transfer you upon request all software documentation and the source code.
        7. Make sure that you have a good indemnification clause with no limitation of liability. Often Polish IT companies subcontract some part of the development work to free lancers. You never know if they will conclude proper agreements with their subcontractors and if they will legally acquire the IP of the software that they will later sell you. There is always the risk that in the future some Polish IT engineer you never met will raise IP infringement claims against you, trying to prove that he/she actually developed the software. In such a situation an indemnification clause will help you recovering the costs from your partner.

        Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.

        En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.

        Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).

        Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.

        En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.

        En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.

        En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.

        En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.

        En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.

        La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.

        En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.

        La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.

        La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.

        Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).

        Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.

        De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.

        La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.

        Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:

        1. Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
        2. La previsibilidad de la misma.
        3. Los límites cuantificativos.

        Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano

        En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.

        En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.

        Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.

        Los instrumentos para tutelarse

        El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.

        La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.

        Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).

        Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.

        En base a nuestra experiencia en años asesorando y representando compañías en la distribución comercial (en la jurisdicción española pero con fabricantes o distribuidores extranjeros), los siguientes son los seis elementos esenciales para que fabricantes (proveedores) y minoristas (distribuidores) puedan establecer buenas bases en una relación de distribución.

        Estas ideas son relevantes cuando las empresas tienen la intención de iniciar su relación comercial, pero no deben descuidarse y verificarse incluso cuando ya existan esas relaciones.

        La firma del contrato

        Aunque podría parecer obvio, la firma de un acuerdo de distribución es menos común de lo que parece. A menudo ocurre que a lo largo de la relación extendida, las estructuras corporativas cambian y lo que una vez se firmó con una sociedad, no se ha renovado, adaptado, modificado o reemplazado cuando la situación se ha transformado. Es muy conveniente haber documentado bien la relación en cada momento de su existencia y estar seguro de que lo que se ha previsto legalmente también se pueda cumplir en la relación comercial cotidiana. Es aconsejable que este trabajo previo sea llevado a cabo por especialistas legales coordinados estrechamente con el departamento comercial de la compañía. Las cláusulas perfectamente redactadas desde un punto de vista legal serán inútiles si son superadas o no cumplidas en el día a día. Y, por supuesto, ningún contrato se firma como una «mera formalidad» para luego modificarlo mediante acuerdos o prácticas verbales que lo dejen sin contenido.

        La elección correcta del contrato

        Si la firma del contrato de distribución es importante, la elección del tipo correcto es esencial. Muchos de los conflictos que ocurren, especialmente en las relaciones a largo plazo, comienzan con la interpretación del tipo de relación que se ha firmado. Incluso con un texto escrito (y con un título expreso), la intención de las partes sigue sin estar clara (y por lo tanto, el acuerdo). ¿Es el «distribuidor» realmente así? ¿Compra y revende o solo existen relaciones de suministro esporádicas? ¿Existe solo una actividad representativa (es decir, el distribuidor es en realidad un «agente»)? ¿Hay una relación mixta (a veces representa, a veces compra y revende)? La lista podría continuar indefinidamente. Incluso en muchas de las relaciones que existen actualmente, estoy seguro de que la interpretación dada por el Proveedor y el Distribuidor podría ser diferente.

        Supervisar las relaciones legales y comerciales

        Si es bastante frecuente no tener un contrato escrito claro, sucede en casi todas las relaciones de distribución que una vez que se ha firmado el acuerdo, la actividad comercial diaria modifica lo que se ha acordado. ¿Por qué las relaciones comerciales parecen descuidar lo que se ha escrito en un acuerdo? Son bastante frecuentes los contratos en los que se incluyen ciertas obligaciones para los distribuidores (informar sobre el mercado, clientes, compras mínimas), pero que en la práctica no se respetan (parece complicado, existe una buena relación entre las partes, nadie recuerda lo que se había firmado por personas que ya no trabajan en la empresa…). Sin embargo, también es bastante frecuente intentar utilizar esas obligaciones más adelante cuando comienzan los problemas en la relación. En ese momento, las partes intentan esconderse detrás de esos incumplimientos para resolver los contratos, aunque estas prácticas hubieran sido, en cierto modo, aceptadas. Por supuesto, ningún acuerdo puede durar para siempre y, por esa razón, es altamente recomendable una supervisión global y periódico entre el asesor legal (preferentemente uno independiente con el apoyo de los directivos internos) y el departamento comercial para tener en cuenta las nuevas prácticas y tener su reflejo en los documentos contractuales.

        Evidencias sobre los clientes

        En los contratos de distribución, las evidencias sobre los clientes serán esenciales en caso de resolución. Las partes (principalmente el proveedor) están bastante interesadas en probar quién (proveedor o distribuidor) adquirió los clientes. ¿Son resultado de la actividad del distribuidor o se obtienen como consecuencia de la reputación de la marca? Reunir las pruebas sobre los clientes podría simplificar o incluso evitar futuros conflictos. La importancia de la clientela y su posible actividad futura será un elemento clave para definir la compensación que pueda pretender el distribuidor.

        Evidencias sobre compras y ventas

        Otro elemento esencial y, a menudo, olvidado es la justificación de las compras al proveedor y las ventas posteriores de los distribuidores a los clientes. En cualquier acuerdo de distribución, los distribuidores adquieren los productos y los revenden a los clientes finales. Una compensación futura al distribuidor considerará la diferencia entre los precios de compra y los precios de reventa (el margen). Por lo tanto, es aconsejable poder establecer la prueba correspondiente sobre dicha información a fin de preparar mejor una posible reclamación.

        Daños en caso de resolución de los contratos

        Del mismo modo, sería conveniente justificar qué daños se han sufrido como resultado de la resolución de un contrato: ¿ha realizado el distribuidor inversiones por indicación del proveedor que aún no se han amortizado? ¿El distribuidor ha contratado nuevos empleados para una línea de negocio que debe ser descartada debido a la resolución del contrato? ¿El distribuidor ha alquilado nuevas instalaciones firmando contratos a largo plazo debido a las expectativas del acuerdo? Tenga en cuenta que el Distribuidor es un comerciante independiente y, como tal, asume los riesgos de su actividad. Pero en la medida en que actúe en una red de distribución, estará sujeto a las instrucciones, sugerencias y expectativas creadas por el proveedor. Estas pueden ser relevantes para determinar posteriormente los daños causados ​​por la resolución del contrato.

        Influencer marketing is the trend in today’s world of advertising. Even though it is obvious that influencer marketing must observe the framework of applicable statutory provisions, the market has long been uncertain about how influencer posts are to be drafted in order to be legally compliant. The current decision of Celle Higher Regional Court (June 08, 2017 – Case 13 U 53/17) offers at least some clarity.

        The judgment was issued in relation to an action for injunction by the German Association for Social Competition (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) against a German drugstore chain. A 20-year-old Instagram star with 1.3 million followers had advertised the drugstore chain in one of her posts. The post was only marked as advertisement at the bottom with the hashtag “#ad,” which additionally only came second in a list of six hashtags.

        Celle Higher Regional Court adjudged that this type of marking was insufficient. The court requested that the commercial purpose of an Instagram post would have to be apparent at first sight. It did not consider use of the hashtag “#ad” in a “hashtag cloud” to be sufficient to mark the post as advertising.

        The court left expressly open, however, whether the use of the hashtag “#ad” is generally suitable to mark advertising posts.

        The state media authorities (Landesmedienanstalten) already reacted to the judgment, however, and revised their joint guide on advertising issues in social media. It now reads: “When marking a post as PROMOTION (Werbung) or ADVERTISING (Anzeige), you will be on the safe side – that much is certain. […] At the current time, we cannot recommend marking posts as #ad, #sponsored by, or #powered by.” In the future, Instagram itself intends to provide for more transparency on the platform by comprehensibly identifying advertising posts. It is currently testing the introduction of a branded content tool in Germany to make it easier for users to recognize posts as paid advertising.

        Practical tip

        Advertising posts in social media should always be marked as “promotion” or “advertising” at the beginning of the posts unless their commercial purpose arises directly from the circumstances. Advertisers are also advised to obligate influencers contractually to such legally compliant marking of posts, since the influencers’ behavior may be attributed to the company, as is clearly shown by the recent judgment of Celle Higher Regional Court against the drugstore chain.

        The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

        In this clip I briefly introduce the main options to consider when doing business in Iran.
        You can read more on this topic in my articles An introduction to Iran Corporations  and Obtaining a Foreign Investment License and browse Legalmondo’s blog for some other  posts on doing business in the region.

        If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

        Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

        This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

        Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

        Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

        The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

        The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

        It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

        There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

        • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
        • a frustration or a force majeure.

        There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

        The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

        What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

        The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

        A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

        If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

        • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
        • the good faith of the parties;
        • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
        • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
        • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

        What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

        The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

        The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

        • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
        • sudden;
        • unpredictable.

        To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

        • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
        • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
        • a constant increase in turnover;
        • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
        • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
        • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
        • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
        • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

        The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

        • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
        • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
        • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

        Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

        Compensation for a damage

        The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

        The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

        The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

        International law

        The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

        However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

        The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

        The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

        In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

        • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
        • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

        In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

        In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

        The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

        When negotiating contracts, parties typically focus on the key commercial terms of their agreement. The clauses that govern the term of the agreement (i.e., the duration, or how long the contract remains in force), the renewal of the term, and how the agreement can be terminated, however, merit careful consideration.

        Under Québec law, contracts typically have terms that are either fixed (e.g., 5 years, 10 years etc.), or are for an indeterminate period of time (i.e., no specific term is provided for). Contracts with fixed terms may also contain automatic renewal clauses. In the case of an indeterminate term contract, a party to the contract can generally, absent specific terms or a notice provision to the contrary in the contract, terminate it, without cause, by providing reasonable notice of termination (what constitutes «reasonable notice» depends on a number of factors and is decided on the facts of each case). A third category of contracts are contracts with a potentially perpetual term. An example of a potentially perpetual contract is a contract that contains a renewal clause that is entirely under the control of only one of the parties who can, effectively, unilaterally decide whether the contract will go on indefinitely. In such a contract, the other contracting party does not have a right to terminate the contract by providing reasonable notice of termination. The validity of perpetual term contracts was precisely the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in its July 28, 2017 decision in Uniprix inc. v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16746/index.do («Uniprix«).

        In Uniprix, the pharmacy chain entered into an affiliation agreement with various members of a pharmacists’ group pursuant to which said members operated a pharmacy under the Uniprix banner. The term of the contract was for a fixed term of 5 years and the renewal clause allowed members to provide a notice within a certain period of time, failing which the contract would automatically be renewed for an additional 5 years:

        Regardless of any written or verbal provisions to the contrary, this agreement shall commence on the day of its signing and shall remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) months, or for a period equal to the term of the lease for the premises where the pharmacy is located. [The member pharmacist] shall, six (6) months before the expiration of the agreement, notify [Uniprix] of its intention to leave [Uniprix] or to renew the agreement; 

        Should [the member pharmacist] fail to send the prescribed notice by registered mail, the agreement shall be deemed to have been renewed in accordance with the terms and conditions then in effect, as prescribed by the board of directors, except with regard to the fee.[Translation]

        The Uniprix agreement did not provide any say to Uniprix in connection with its renewal and there were no limits on the number of times that the members could renew the agreement. As such, the contract could remain in force perpetually based entirely on the members’ decision. After the contract had been renewed twice, Uniprix sent the members a notice of non-renewal and purported to terminate the agreement. The members contested Uniprix’s decision based on the fact that under the affiliation agreement, the renewal clause could only be exercised by the members and, unless the members gave notice to the contrary, the contract was automatically renewed. Uniprix argued that the effect of the members’ position, which would bind the parties in perpetuity, was contrary to public order (i.e., it violated a fundamental societal value) and unlawful and, as such, the term of the agreement should be considered to be for an indeterminate period, which would allow either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

        In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held (in upholding the decisions of the majority of the Québec Court of Appeal and of the Superior Court of Québec) that there was nothing under Québec law that prohibited a contract of affiliation from having a perpetual term and that this did not, in and of itself and in the context of corporate and commercial agreements, offend any fundamental societal values. The Court’s holding would equally apply to many other types of contracts such as, for example, franchise agreements and licensing agreements. The Court held, accordingly, that the affiliation agreement was not for an indeterminate term and, therefore, could be not be terminated by Uniprix by providing reasonable notice.

        With respect to the holding in Uniprix , the following points should be kept in mind:

        1. The Supreme Court of Canada expressly noted that in certain circumstances, such as where an individual’sperson and freedom are affected (e.g., a contract of employment), a perpetual obligation could offend public order.
        2. In certain specific cases set out in the Civil Code of Québec, the legislator has provided maximum terms for certain types of contracts (e.g., a commercial lease cannot exceed 100 years, the duration of payment of an annuity is 100 years).
        3. In the case of a contract of adhesion (which is generally defined as a contract where one of the parties was unable to negotiate its terms), the adhering or vulnerable party can argue that a perpetual term is abusive and, therefore, null.
        4. The Court’s decision in Uniprixapplied to Uniprix’s ability to terminate the contract without cause. A party always retains the right to terminate a contract for cause. What constitutes «cause» is decided on a case by case basis and may also be governed by the terms of the contract.

        When drafting contracts, parties are generally, subject to limitations imposed by the legislator or public order, permitted to structure their relationship as they see fit. Parties should carefully consider whether they truly intend the duration of their agreement to be entirely under the control of one of the parties to the agreement for an indefinite period of time because, as is made clear in Uniprix, perpetual commercial contracts are enforceable under Québec law.

        The author of this post is David Stolow.

        Roberto Luzi Crivellini

        Áreas de práctica

        • Arbitraje
        • Contratos de distribución
        • Comercio internacional
        • Derecho Internacional Privado
        • Derecho Inmobiliario
        Contáctanos Roberto

        Contacta con Roberto





          Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
          Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.