Sunscreen stick design, common colour tones (yellow-orange), and sunny, beach-themed campaign visuals are category choices, not proprietary assets, belonging to the market rather than to any single brand.

Parasitism claims in France cannot rest on resemblance alone, and must be anchored to a specific commercial asset that is real, economically valuable, and clearly recognised in the market. The dispute between La Rosée and Caudalie over competing sunscreen sticks was never about an idea, a shape, a colour palette, or a shared supplier, because none of these elements are exclusive to one undertaking. The decision of the President of the Paris Commercial Court in December 2024 rejected interim intervention, and the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed this rejection in October 2025, holding that parasitism claims require identification of a distinct business asset, not a collection of shared industry visuals or manufacturing overlap.

First market entry does not create ownership

The court accepted that La Rosée launched its sunscreen stick before Caudalie entered the stick format in 2024, but confirmed that launch sequence alone does not create ownership, and that being first does not grant exclusivity over a format already present in the wider French cosmetics market, particularly where equivalent cylindrical, wide-diameter cosmetic sticks had been commercialised earlier by other brands, including Collistar and Anne Möller, both predating 2024, meaning that the format could not be characterised as a uniquely identifiable commercial asset belonging to La Rosée alone.

Being first does not create ownership. In France, launching before others does not grant a brand exclusive rights over a product category, nor does it prevent competitors from introducing similarly appearing products, provided they do so lawfully and without using a distinctive element of another brand.

Sunscreen colours are category choices, not proprietary assets

Caudalie demonstrated long-standing and consistent use of its yellow-orange shade across the Vinosun Protect sun-care range since 2021, including on its 2024 sunscreen stick, and the court treated yellow-orange sunscreen tones as ordinary category choices commonly used in the French sun-care market, not proprietary commercial assets belonging to one competitor, and therefore not a distinct economic value that could sustain interim relief or an urgent procedural intervention.

Shared suppliers show continuity, not parasitism

La Rosée argued that Caudalie used the same packaging manufacturer, Induplast, but the judgment confirmed that Caudalie had worked with Induplast since 2019, long before 2024, and that La Rosée continued to source components from the same supplier for certain products, making the shared manufacturer argument a neutral commercial fact demonstrating continuity, not interference, not displacement, and not parasitism.

Beach visuals are industry language, not business assets

La Rosée also pointed to similarities in promotional visuals, including beach-side scenes and parent-child or duo imagery, as well as promotional trolleys and pharmacy displays, but the court held that this iconography reflects classic, seasonal, and widely replicated marketing codes within the French sun-care cosmetics sector, meaning that category communication codes cannot be reframed as commercial assets belonging to one competitor alone, nor treated as identifiable economic value taken for parasitic gain.

Interim investigations must change facts, this one would not

Most critically, La Rosée sought interim investigative intervention, arguing a general fear of evidence destruction, but the court confirmed that La Rosée already possessed sufficient public materials to file its interim claims, which it did file without waiting for any investigative result, and that the concern over possible evidence destruction was expressed only in general terms, without specific supporting facts, and that the investigation requested would not change the facts already before the court, and therefore would not influence the future dispute in any decisive or material way, leading to the rejection of the request.

Because La Rosée did not identify a clearly individualised distinctive brand element appropriated by Caudalie, nor demonstrate that Caudalie captured a recognisable economic value belonging solely to it, and because the requested investigation would not materially affect the facts or the outcome of a future dispute, the court correctly declined interim intervention, including all demands for injunction, recall, publication, and provisional damages contingent on those thresholds.

In October 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that parasitism requires proof that a competitor unfairly benefited from a product’s distinctive appeal, which La Rosée failed to show.

Conclusion

In France, parasitism law does not protect mere visual resemblance, nor does it convert market trends, category colours, shared packaging formats, or common seasonal advertising visuals into proprietary branding assets. A parasitism claim must pinpoint a concrete business asset, demonstrate its economic value, and show that a competitor has exploited that value, not merely echoed a category aesthetic.

Because La Rosée did not demonstrate any distinct asset with recognised economic value that Caudalie had exploited, and because further investigation would not have altered the facts before the court, the French courts correctly declined interim intervention.

The decision confirms that competitive resemblance is not parasitism, and that being first does not confer ownership. The sunscreen stick format, the yellow-orange tones, the retail displays, and the beach visuals all belong to the marketplace, not to any single brand.

With this ruling, the Paris Court of Appeal leaves the parties exactly where French competition principles intend them to stand, free to compete, required to do so fairly, and unable to claim exclusivity over elements already shared by the market.

---

Source: