Van Cleef v Louis Vuitton: French court sides with luxury fashion house in clover motif dispute

Unfair competition and parasitism are major concerns in trademark law, particularly in the luxury sector, where the visual identity of products is crucial. Florence Chapin explores the topic in the context of a recent ruling by France’s Court of Cassation in the dispute between the luxury jewellery company Van Cleef & Arpels and the luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton over the use of a four-lobed clover motif. 

The Louis Vuitton Blossom collection features a four-lobed clover motif that was allegedly similar to the Van Cleef & Arpels Alhambra design. However, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the parasitism claims, ruling that Louis Vuitton had not intentionally sought to unduly benefit from Van Cleef & Arpels' reputation. On 5 March 2025, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed this dismissal (Van Cleef v Louis Vuitton, Appeal No 23-21.157). 

Origins of the dispute 

The Van Cleef v Louis Vuitton ruling illustrates the tensions between creative innovation and the protection of well-established distinctive signs – and marks a significant milestone in French case law regarding unfair competition and parasitism in trademark matters.  

The dispute pitted Richemont International, the Swiss luxury goods group that owns the prestigious jewellery houses Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, against Louis Vuitton Malletier over the latter’s use of motifs in its ‘Blossom’ jewellery collection, which were deemed similar to the iconic Van Cleef & Arpels Alhambra design.  

Created in 1968, the Van Cleef & Arpels Alhambra collection is characterised by a symmetrical four-lobed clover motif in semiprecious hardstones set in precious metal, which has become emblematic of the brand. Louis Vuitton, which entered the jewellery market in 2000, launched its Blossom collection in 2015, incorporating four-lobed motifs inspired by its traditional monogram canvas, in use since 1896. Richemont and Cartier alleged that this similarity constituted an act of parasitism, as Louis Vuitton was unfairly capitalising on the renown and craftsmanship associated with the ‘Alhambra’ collection.  

In its judgement of 23 June 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the parasitism claims, ruling that the differences between the motifs were sufficient to eliminate any risk of confusion for the well-informed consumer. The court also considered that the use of four-lobed motifs was part of a general trend in the jewellery industry and that Louis Vuitton had not intentionally sought to position itself in the wake of Van Cleef & Arpels.  

In its appeal, the claimant invoked the various constitutive elements of parasitism in French trademark law, which it alleged should have been taken into account, namely:  

• the appropriation of the distinctive features of the Alhambra four-lobed clover motif, without any technical necessity;  
• the appropriation of the distinctive features of the Alhambra collection for the creation of a cohesive range of 31 jewellery pieces;  
• the use of the same semi-precious stone colours;  
• the structuring of the disputed jewellery collection into three motif sizes similar to those of the Alhambra collection;  
• the adoption of a comparable pricing strategy; and  
• the use of Van Cleef & Arpels' communication strategies, departing from Louis Vuitton's traditional branding codes.  

The Court of Cassation’s ruling  

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, reasoning as follows:  

“Having noted that, without reproducing all the characteristics of the allegedly parasitised well-known product, the competitor marketed a product whose form, similar to that of the original, was merely a variation of its own well-known motif within a new collection, and that the same materials were used in line with contemporary trends, the Court of Appeal was justified in concluding that the competitor had not sought to position itself in the wake of another.” 

To support this decision, the court emphasised that the Court of Appeal had properly considered a key factor: The Louis Vuitton Blossom collection motif did not replicate all the distinctive features of the Alhambra model, particularly the absence of pearl beading or double-sided settings.  

Thus, according to the Court of Cassation, Louis Vuitton did not intend to unduly benefit from Van Cleef & Arpels' reputation:  

“The Vuitton companies drew inspiration from the four-lobed flower of their monogram canvas, rather than from the 'Alhambra' model, and their use of semi-precious stones framed by precious metal in the 'Colour Blossom' collection was aligned with prevailing market trends, which [Van Cleef & Arpels] could not lawfully prohibit other jewellers from following. The Court of Appeal, after separately examining each of the elements invoked by the Richemont Group companies and then assessing them collectively, duly acknowledged the similarities between the two collections but was not required to conduct the further inquiries mentioned in the fourth and fifth arguments, as its findings rendered them irrelevant. Furthermore, setting aside the superfluous grounds challenged in the sixth argument, the Court of Appeal was entitled to conclude that the Vuitton companies had not sought to position themselves in the wake of the Richemont Group companies.” 

Van Cleef v Louis Vuitton: Implications and scope  

Although the French Court of Cassation did not find parasitic competition in this case, the ruling reinforces the importance of protecting original creations against imitations that could create public confusion, even in the absence of direct deception. At the same time, it highlights the difficulty of securing absolute protection. It also serves as a reminder that companies must exercise caution when designing new products to ensure they do not unduly capitalise on pre-existing creations.  

The ruling provides important clarification on the criteria for assessing parasitism in trademark law, emphasising the need for a holistic analysis of similarities and the protection of businesses’ creative investments. It underscores that proving parasitic behaviour requires demonstrating an unfair appropriation of a competitor’s work.  

The Court of Cassation’s reasoning reaffirms the following principle:  “The burden lies on the party alleging acts of parasitism to identify the specific economic value it claims is being exploited, as well as the intent of a third party to position itself in its wake.” 

This decision aligns with existing case law, confirming that drawing inspiration from general market trends does not, in itself, constitute parasitic competition.   

To find out more about parasitic competition or the implications of the Van Cleef v Louis Vuitton ruling for your business, please speak to your Novagraaf attorney or contact us below. 

Florence Chapin is a Trademark and Design Attorney at Novagraaf in France.   

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in March 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.