ERRATUM: the date of this decision is indeed March 12, 1985 and not February 22, 1978 as we wrote in the video. ♥️♥️ If you liked this video, don't hesitate to like it, comment and subscribe so you don't miss the next ones. ♥️♥️ If you want to follow our news, join us on our networks: ???? instagram: / filezdroit ???? twitter: / droitfilez ⚠️ Warning ⚠️ This video is only intended to help you understand decisions that are sometimes quite complex. They are in no way intended to replace the doctrine which constitutes a solid source of knowledge. Do not forget that plagiarism is prohibited and severely punished in the academic setting. So don't forget to cite your sources and put your quotes in quotation marks. ⤵️ Here is the text of the video ⤵️: Today I'm going to talk to you about the Bordas case law, which focuses on the unavailability of the surname. Pierre Bordas created an SARL in 1946, he gave it his patronymic name, his family name, by giving it the company name "éditions Bordas". The company changed during his life, and Pierre Bordas became a minority shareholder. Mr. Bordas took legal action to stop the use of his surname as the name of the company he had created. The trial judges noted that Pierre Bordas had freely chosen to assign his patronymic name to his company, but nevertheless accepted the founder's requests by considering that there was no agreement on the use or inclusion in the name of the company of the surname "bordas". This was a tolerance by Mr. Bordas that he could have stopped without abuse for "just reasons". The appeal judges therefore asked the company to no longer include the surname Bordas in their name. A little reminder: The surname is in principle inalienable and imprescriptible, that is to say that it is in principle forbidden to dispose of one's surname, one cannot transfer it or lose it. It is in principle unavailable. Do the principles of inalienability and imprescriptibility of the surname oppose its use as a trade name or company name? The Court of Cassation will say the opposite, contradicting the Court of Appeal. "The principle of the inalienability and imprescriptibility of the surname, which prevents its holder from freely disposing of it to identify another natural person in the same way, does not oppose the conclusion of an agreement concerning the use of this name as a company name or trade name". With this ruling, the Court of Cassation invented the theory of dissociation, that is to say that when the statutes of the company were signed, by registering his surname as the name of the company, the surname was detached from the natural person who bore it to become a distinctive sign of the legal entity that he had created. The name Bordas thus became an "object of intangible property" The Bordas ruling made it possible to recognize a property right on the surname detached from the natural person to become a distinctive sign of a legal entity. By this initial choice of Mr. Bordas, the surname became a property of the company, and obtained a pecuniary value.