Keeex v Adobe (UPC_CFI_530/2025)

• In the context of an infringement action brought by Keeex, in December 2025, Adobe obtained an order for security for costs from Keeex. This security was to be given in the form of a bank guarantee from an EU-authorised bank within four weeks and totalled €200,000. Keeex appealed this order under Rule 220.1 RoP, but the appeal had no suspensive effect.
• Adobe subsequently applied for a default judgment under Rule 158.5 and Rule 355.1(a) RoP, seeking dismissal of the infringement action and its costs. It argued that Keeex had failed to provide the ordered bank guarantee within the time limit and that the documents it eventually produced did not comply with the December 2025 order or Rule 158 RoP.
• Keeex argued that default judgment is an exceptional measure that should only be handed down in the event of “manifest, persistent and culpable failure by a party, characterised by a total or deliberate refusal to comply with an order”. It relied on the fact that it (i) sought clarification from the court on the form of security, (ii) filed, within the deadline, a bank certificate showing that €200,000 had been blocked on its account, and (iii) promptly filed a “first demand” bank guarantee after receiving the judge-rapporteur’s clarifications.
• In making its decision, the Paris LD recalled that Rule 158.5 RoP provides that it may render a default judgment and, referring to the Court of Appeal’s approach in Microsoft v Suinno, emphasised the need to exercise that discretion in accordance with fairness, proportionality and procedural efficiency.
• The court held that Keeex had demonstrated sufficient diligence and that Adobe’s objections were largely formal and unsupported by evidence under Rule 271.2 RoP. As such, Adobe's application for default judgment was dismissed.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.