Cass. com., 5 March 2025, No. 23-21.157

The facts

Richemont and Cartier brought an action against Louis Vuitton, claiming that the ‘Color Blossom’ collection used the stylistic codes of the ‘Alhambra’ jewellery range (a four-leaf clover in precious metal-encircled gemstone). They believed that this similarity reflected a strategy of capturing the reputation and expertise of the ‘Alhambra’ collections, which had been on the market since 1968.

The legal framework of economic parasitism

Parasitism is a form of unfair competition. It is defined as a strategy of following in the wake of a competitor to unduly benefit from their reputation, investments or know-how. In its ruling, the Court of Cassation provides a definition of parasitism in line with its previous case law:

‘Economic parasitism is a form of disloyalty, constituting a fault within the meaning of Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which consists of an economic operator following in the wake of another in order to take undue advantage of their efforts, know-how, acquired reputation or investments made. Parasitism results from a set of elements considered as a whole, regardless of any risk of confusion.’

To be characterised, parasitism must bring together several elements:

1. An individualised economic value specific to the victim company.
2. A desire for undue capture by the competing company.
3. Unfair behaviour creating an unjustified advantage.

The Court of Cassation, true to its educational approach, also specifies the elements to characterise in order to justify free riding:

‘It is up to the person claiming to be the victim of free riding to identify the individualised economic value he or she is invoking, as well as the willingness of a third party to follow in his or her wake.

Ideas are free to circulate, and the mere fact of adopting and adapting a concept used by a competitor does not in itself constitute an act of parasitism. ’

Decision of the Court of Cassation

The Court rejected the appeal and ruled out parasitism.

The Court of Cassation recognised that the ‘Alhambra’ model is an iconic and well-known product of the brand, representing an individualised economic value.

However :

• The Louis Vuitton ‘Color Blossom’ range does not include all the characteristics of the Alhambra motif, in particular the absence of beaded setting and the fact that the gemstone used has a different shape.
• Louis Vuitton based its design on its own stylistic heritage, in particular its iconic monogram dating from 1896.
• The desire for undue appropriation has not been demonstrated, especially since other jewellers also use quatrefoil motifs.

Indeed, for the Court of Cassation, there was no intention on the part of LOUIS VUITTON to follow in the footsteps of CARTIER.

‘the Vuitton companies were inspired by the quatrefoil flower of their monogrammed canvas, and not by the ‘Alhambra’ model, and that it was in order to follow the trend of the moment, something that the company [L] & [M] could not forbid other jewellers to do, that they used, for the ‘ Colour Blossom’ collection, semi-precious stones encircled by a precious metal outline, the court of appeal, which, after having examined separately each of the elements invoked by the companies of the Richemont group, considered them as a whole and which did not ignore the similarities between the two collections, was able, without having to carry out the research referred to in the fourth and fifth branches, that its findings rendered inoperative, and apart from the superabundant grounds criticised in the sixth branch, to deduce that the Vuitton companies had not intended to follow in the footsteps of the companies of the Richemont group.’

This decision confirms well-established case law that inspiration from a general market trend does not in itself constitute an act of parasitism.

Consequences and scope

The ruling reiterates that, in terms of competition in the luxury goods industry, the originality of a design is not sufficient to found an action for parasitism. It is necessary to prove an unfair appropriation of a competitor’s work. This case illustrates the difficulty for the major companies in obtaining absolute protection on recurring jewellery design motifs.

This decision also demonstrates that inspiration does not necessarily constitute parasitism, nor the difficulty in justifying parasitism.

By Olivier VIBERT

Lawyer, Paris

Kbestan, www.kbestan.fr