It is possible to take summary proceedings to report acts of copyright infringement and acts of unfair or parasitic competition, provided that the infringement of rights and the fault are obvious and that the manifestly unlawful disturbance is proven. Illustration with the Filorga case by Sylvie Benoliel-Claux, lawyer at the Paris Bar.
Plasticos Faca, one of the leading manufacturers of high-end cosmetic jars, supplied Filorga with a “T 65” jar for packaging facial care products for several years.
Considering that Filorga was using packaging similar to the T 65 after the end of their collaboration, Plasticos Faca sued it for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and parasitic competition.
Rejection of claims
The Court of Appeals rejected all of Plasticos Faca’s claims.
Copyright
➡️ Plasticos Faca claimed that its packaging was original, highlighting its elongated cubic shape, transparent bottom, opaque lid, lighting effects, and certain other design details.
➡️ While the characteristics of the pot are described in detail, the Court of Appeal notes that the creator never explained how this pot specifically reflected his personality.
➡️ Previous containers with features similar to those claimed are also included in the proceedings.
➡️ The “T 65” jar, while demonstrating undeniable craftsmanship, does not, on the face of it, have a distinctive appearance and does not appear to be eligible for copyright protection.
➡️ The existence of a manifestly unlawful situation has not been demonstrated, nor has the alleged urgency, which is assessed on the date on which …
