News
Share
Originality, parasitism and anteriority in IP
03.13.2025
Copying an earlier model belonging to a third party, whose notoriety is emphasized, does not give rise to a claim of parasitism.
In a ruling handed down on November 15, 2024, the Paris Judicial Court rejected a claim for counterfeiting of clothing designs on the grounds of lack of originality and proven reproduction. It also dismissed the charge of parasitism, emphasizing the anteriority and reputation of the model invoked. This decision illustrates the importance of dissimilarities in assessing infringement, and adapts the notion of anteriority to parasitism.
TJ Paris, November 25 2024, no. 22/06619
In a judgment handed down on November 15, 2024, the Paris Court of First Instance ruled on clothing models alleged to reproduce printed fabrics in violation of the plaintiff’s copyright.
In the alternative, parasitism was also claimed.
Several prints were involved.
The ground of originality was rejected by the Court, which found that common motifs were treated differently, combined with other motifs absent from the plaintiff company’s prints.
The Court also noted that none of the lettering was identical, nor were the color palettes.
It added that: “The composition of the motifs on the prints is in no way the same as on the LOVER#890 and LEOPARD#837 prints, the place and relative importance of these being different, so that their observed resemblance does not make it possible to characterize a reproduction of them”.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the infringement claim as not established.
This is in line with established case law.
If the dissimilarities outweigh any similarities, there is no copyright infringement.
The judgment is interesting on another point concerning parasitism.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had reproduced almost an entire collection, as well as a dress reproducing an identified motif, at lower prices and in lower quality.
In paragraph 43, the Court dismissed the claim, noting that the design complained of corresponded to an earlier model of the “Yves Saint-Laurent” trademark and emphasizing its exceptional reputation.
It also pointed out that all the elements of the earlier design – motifs, colors and composition – were to be found in the model invoked.
The Court concluded that the plaintiff company “could not base any claim of unfair competition on a copy of this model, assuming it had been proven”.
Consequently, the fact of copying an earlier model belonging to a third party, whose notoriety is emphasized, does not make it possible to invoke parasitism in an attempt to obtain a conviction.
In fact, the notion of anteriority, which exists in the case of design infringement, seems to be adapted here to the specific field of parasitism.
Indeed, it would seem logical and legitimate to reject an action for damages for parasitism if the model allegedly imitated corresponds to a model belonging to a third party of exceptional renown.
A priori, the solution should be identical even if the earlier model did not correspond to a trademark of exceptional renown, provided that the earlier date is well established.
Share
