On 5 March 2025, the French Court of Cassation ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton, dismissing an appeal brought by Richemont, the group that owns Van Cleef & Arpels, which claimed that Louis Vuitton’s design imitated a 1968 jewellery motif widely associated with the Alhambra collection. The dispute centred on whether Louis Vuitton’s Colour Blossom collection amounted to an unfair imitation. The court upheld earlier rulings that Vuitton’s jewellery line was a legitimate brand extension, not an act of commercial parasitism.
Background of the Dispute
Richemont argued that Louis Vuitton’s Colour Blossom line improperly drew from the well-established Alhambra motif. The “Alhambra” collection, launched in 1968, features a symmetrical quadrilobe clover design crafted from semi-precious stones and encased in precious metal. Richemont claimed that Vuitton’s adoption of a similar motif, marketed since 2015, amounted to free-riding on its brand’s reputation and consumer recognition.
Louis Vuitton countered that its “Colour Blossom” collection was inspired by its long-standing Monogram motif, a design element dating back to 1896. The company asserted that its adaptation of the floral quadrilobe shape into jewellery was a natural extension of its brand identity rather than an attempt to capitalise on Van Cleef & Arpels’ designs.
Louis Vuitton’s Monogram motif dates back to 1896, when Georges Vuitton introduced it as a tribute to his father, the brand’s founder.
The monogram features an italicised “L” beneath a “V,” accompanied by floral symbols. These include a four-point star representing fortune, a four-petal flower symbolising joy, and a four-point star within a diamond signifying passion. These motifs remain integral to Vuitton’s identity and continue to influence its designs, including the “Colour Blossom” collection.
Analysing Similarities
A key aspect of the dispute was the resemblance between the two collections, both featuring a quadrilobe design, commonly seen in historical jewellery pieces. However, the differences were notable: Louis Vuitton’s design did not include key elements of the “Alhambra” motif, such as its distinctive beaded edges and symmetrical shape. Additionally, Louis Vuitton’s use of its own Monogram flower as inspiration played a critical role in the court’s decision that there was no parasitic intent.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court of Cassation upheld the earlier decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, which had dismissed Richemont’s claims. The court found that while both collections featured a quadrilobe motif, Vuitton’s interpretation was distinct in several ways:
The Louis Vuitton design was not an exact replica and lacked key elements of the “Alhambra” design, such as its characteristic metal beading and double-sided structure.
The court emphasized that Vuitton’s design choices aligned with industry trends in jewellery, where the use of semi-precious stones set in precious metal is common practice.
Vuitton’s adaptation of its own Monogram motif was a legitimate brand extension rather than an act of commercial parasitism.
The ruling made clear that parasitism under French law requires clearintent to unfairly benefit from a competitor’s investments and reputation. In this case, the court determined that Louis Vuitton’s design evolution was a natural progression of its brand, rather than an attempt to exploit Van Cleef & Arpels’ well-established reputation.
Conclusion
This ruling confirms that merely having similar designs is insufficient to prove parasitism. Brands must now provide evidence of clear intent and an unfair advantage when pursuing claims of unfair competition under French Law. The decision also highlights how a brand’s history can influence legal outcomes, as Louis Vuitton successfully defended its use of long-established motifs. The court recognised that the evolution of Louis Vuitton’s design style was a natural progression, not an attempt to capitalise on another brand’s reputation.
This ruling makes it clear that innovation within a brand’s established identity is protected, giving brands the freedom to evolve while staying true to their foundation, and it provides assurance that brands can innovate within their own visual identity without the concern of being accused of copying.
