Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc. - 621 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2010)

Rule:

Code civil [C. civ.] art. 1341 (Fr.) forbids evidence about what negotiators said to one another--often called parol evidence in the United States--when the value of the dispute exceeds 5,000 francs (roughly 800 euros). This constraint illustrates the proposition that although as a general rule, French and German law do not limit the admissibility of relevant external materials in the process of interpretation this does not mean that it is easy for a party to induce a court to rely on extrinsic evidence in order to add to, vary or contradict a deed or other written instrument. On the contrary, civilian systems are acutely aware of the need to strike a balance between the desire to achieve a materially right outcome on the one hand, and the struggle for legal certainty on the other. As a consequence, they are extremely reluctant to admit that the wording of a contract concluded in writing might be overridden by other factors. Extrinsic evidence can, however, be used for the purposes of interpreting a written document that contains internal contradictions or is otherwise unclear--something true of American law as well.

Facts:

Bodum Holding's US distributor, Bodum USA, Inc., filed an action contending that the sale of any coffee maker similar to a design violated Bodum’s common-law trade dress. Bodum argued that, under French law, the parties' intent prevailed over the written word. La Cafetiere, Inc., contended that an agreement permitted it to sell the design anywhere in the world, except France, provided that it did not use certain marks. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted summary judgment in La Cafetiere’s favor. Bodum appealed.

Issue:

Did the sale of any coffee maker similar to the Chambord design violate Bodum's common-law trade dress?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

Because objective, English-language descriptions of French law were readily available, the court preferred them to the parties' declarations, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. The value of the dispute between Bodum and La Cafetiere exceeded 5,000 francs, so what the negotiators said to each other was irrelevant under Code civil [C. civ.] art. 1156 (Fr.). The court found that the final version of the agreement allowed La Cafetiere to sell the design anywhere except France--provided that it did not use the marks and did not use certain supply channels for four years. The agreement was clear and precise as it stood, and the negotiating history showed that it meant what it said. Bodum insisted that, if the agreement meant what the court concluded it meant, then the agreement was invalid as a "naked license" of a trademark. But Bodum did not sell a naked trademark to La Cafetiere. People were free to use contracts to allocate rights to products' designs.