In French commercial law, parasitism refers to the behavior of a company that usurps the reputation or techniques employed by a well-known company. This can involve either parasitic competition, which is directly related to unfair competition, or parasitic actions in the absence of a competitive relationship.
Parasitism always manifests itself through the exploitation of the work, ideas, investments, advertising, or reputation of others, and aims to use the commercial and industrial success of another for one’s own gain.
To obtain a ban on the economic activities constituting parasitism and compensation for the damage suffered, the company that is the victim of parasitism must demonstrate the fault of the perpetrator and the causal link between the fault and the damage suffered, in accordance with the general principles of Tort law (Articles 1240 and 1241 of the Civil Code).
In the Van Cleef & Arpels v. Louis Vuitton case, the Court of Cassation held that economic parasitism was not established.
The facts are as follows:
Van Cleef & Arpels, now owned by Richemont International and Société Cartier (hereinafter the Richemont Group companies), has been marketing a luxury jewelry line called “Alhambra” since 1968. Its motif features a quadrilobed clover in semi-precious stone surrounded by a pearled or smooth precious metal border, which has become iconic.
Louis Vuitton has marketed a jewelry line called “Monogram” and then “Blossom” since 2006, characterized by a quadrilobed clover motif with a central element surrounded by a circle. This line has been available since 2015 in the “Color Blossom” collection, in which the clover is made of semi-precious stone surrounded by a precious metal border.
Between 2016 and 2017, Richemont Group companies accused Louis Vuitton of acts of parasitic competition in connection with the launch of the “Color Blossom” collection. They served formal notice and then sued Louis Vuitton for compensation for their losses.
At first instance, the Commercial Court found Louis Vuitton guilty of parasitic acts in its judgment of October 4, 2021, considering that there were several visual similarities between the two models. The Court ordered Louis Vuitton to pay € 34,400 in damages to Cartier and € 180,000 in damages to Richemont International, in addition to prohibiting the sale of the “Color Blossom” model and halting its production.
Louis Vuitton appealed this judgment.
In a decision dated June 23, 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal overturned this judgment on the following grounds:
“(…) It follows from the evidence provided in the proceedings, and in particular from the aforementioned exchanges, that the Vuitton companies have evolved their jewelry lines since their launches toward a line using semi-precious stones to represent the flower inserted within the circle, such as the Tambour Vuitton watches that were the subject of the 2013 email and the proposed settlement from Van Cleef & Arpels, and then the Color Blossom collection that is the subject of this dispute.
This shape corresponds well to the quadrilobed flower shape present on the iconic Vuitton canvas, the flower, which includes a heart, being indeed embedded in a circle, and not cut out.
As the Vuitton companies maintain, although the quadrilobed flower of the Color Blossom jewel appears to be for a model of identical dimensions to that of the Van Cleef and Arpels jewel, the latter does not have all the characteristics of the respondents’ iconic model in that the quadrilobed shape is not cut out, does not include a pearl setting, nor a double-sided character, the stone is not smooth and includes a central element. It will be noted that, as demonstrated by the Vuitton companies, the use of the quadrilobed shape (four equal arcs of a circle arranged around a center of symmetry composing the quadrilobe), is a known and common element in the field of applied arts and particularly jewelry (piece 9 LV), and that the use of colored precious or semi-precious stones set in precious metal appears to be part of fashion trends as demonstrated by the Chopard (piece 21 LV), Buccelati (Opera Color collection piece 20-3 LV) or, more recently, Morgane Bello (pieces 19 and 61 LV) collections.
Also, it is clear from the above that the Vuitton companies were initially inspired for their Color Blossom model by the shape of the quadrilobed flower of the iconic Vuitton canvas to adapt it to current trends and the mere use of the quadrilobed shape, not openworked in semi-precious stone encircled by a precious metal outline in no way characterizes a desire by the Louis Vuitton companies to follow in the footsteps of the iconic model mentioned above by the respondents. »
“Regarding the Vuitton companies’ pricing practices, the respondents argue that they initially set their price scale for the 31 criticized pieces of jewelry by systematically retaining prices slightly lower than those of the Alhambra collection, and then increased them to reduce the gap while remaining below it.
However, it is clear from the evidence in the debate, and in particular from the price comparison tables provided by the parties, that the Vuitton companies’ pricing policy for the Color Blossom collection is not based on the prices of the Alhambra collection, as the price differences appear heterogeneous, and can be significantly lower, identical, or higher depending on the product, and not approximately 17% lower, as the court found.»
“The Risa and Société Cartier companies therefore fail to establish that the Vuitton companies sought, without spending a penny, to profit from the individual economic value constituted by the Alhambra model and collection, the fruits of their investments, as well as from the reputation attached to them.”
The Richemont Group companies appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing in particular that:
“Parasiticism, which consists of an economic operator following in the footsteps of a company by unduly profiting from its efforts and know-how, acquired reputation, or investments made, results from a set of factors that must be considered as a whole and not in isolation from one another.
In this case, the accusation of parasitism was based on a set of six acts consisting of (1) the capture of the specificities of the quadrilobed jewelry motif “Alhambra”, without the slightest technical necessity, (2) the capture of the particular structure of the “Alhambra” collection to constitute a coherent set of thirty-one jewels, (3) the use of the same colors of semi-precious stones, (4) the variation of the disputed jewelry range in three sizes of motifs similar to that of the “Alhambra” collection, (5) the determination of a price scale by reference to that of the “Alhambra” collection and (6) the capture of communication channels in a break with the usual codes of the Louis Vuitton.
« Unfair or parasitic competition is assessed in light of the overall impression which is inferred from the proximity of the elements to be compared and their similarities, considered from the point of view of an average consumer, normally informed and reasonably attentive and circumspect, and not in light of their differences. »
In a decision dated March 5, 2025, the Commercial Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal of Richemont group.
For this, the Court of Cassation defined the economic parasitism as follows:
– Economic parasitism is a form of disloyalty, constituting a tort within the meaning of Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which consists, for an economic operator, in following in the footsteps of another in order to unduly profit from their efforts, know-how, acquired reputation, or investments made.
– Parasitism results from a set of factors considered as a whole, regardless of any risk of confusion.
then the High Court considered that economic parasitism was not constituted in this case, on the grounds that “the Louis Vuitton companies were inspired by the quadrilobed flower of their monogrammed canvas, and not by the “Alhambra” model, and that it was to fit into the current trend, which the Richemont group company could not prohibit other jewelers from doing, that they used, for the “Color 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 Richemont group companies, understood them in their entirety and which did not disregard the similarities between the two collections, was able to deduce that the Vuitton companies had not intended to follow in the footsteps of the Richemont group companies.”
