I.G.B. v Unilever France (CFI, 24 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 24 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_494/2023, ACT_596431/2023, ORD_52883/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division held that Rule 263 did not apply to the auxiliary requests amended by Unilever France, the defendant in the action brought by I.G.B. S.r.l. for infringement of EP 3 997 002. Those requests concerned only the terms on which ancillary measures would be enforced (time limits and security). The order marks out the scope of the leave required under Rule 263.

Question

Does an amendment, in the rejoinder, of auxiliary requests on the time limits and security that would attach to an injunction, recall and destruction require leave under Rule 263?

Decision

Rule 263 is meant to prevent late new claims raised without good reason to the detriment of the other party. Leave is needed only for changes affecting the subject matter and scope of the dispute. Unilever’s requests, which proposed among other things cut-off periods of 120 and 60 days and security of EUR 1, 3 and 20 million following the use since August 2024 of allegedly infringing packaging, related only to the enforcement of ancillary measures, were auxiliary and supplemented the original requests: they were not substantial. There was therefore no need to examine Unilever’s diligence. I.G.B. can respond in its next written pleading, so its request under Rule 36 was moot.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: adjusting, in the course of the proceedings, auxiliary requests on how ancillary measures are to be enforced does not require leave under Rule 263, since the opponent can still respond in its next pleading.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 36, 263, 333 and 352

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.