The dispute pits two competing cosmetics companies against each other before the judge in summary proceedings. Despite the similarities between the products and their packaging and the similarities between their promotional campaigns, no fault has been established with the evidence required in summary proceedings. Insights and explanations from Sylvie Benoliel-Claux, lawyer at the Paris Bar.
The facts
In July 2024, La Rosée Cosmétiques obtained authorisation, on the basis of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by non-adversarial orders, to carry out investigative measures on the premises of Caudalie. It accused Caudalie of copying the codes of its sun stick, which had become its flagship product: same colours, same shape, same supplier, similar promotional campaigns.
In September 2024, it brought summary proceedings against Caudalie, seeking in particular a ban on the sale of the sun stick and substantial provisional damages for parasitism and unfair competition.
In August 2024, Caudalie counterattacked by asking the summary judge to withdraw the orders, arguing that the measures sought were disproportionate and intrusive, lacking legitimate grounds.
The proceedings were joined for the sake of good administration of justice.
The solution
Caudalie obtains full satisfaction before the judge in summary proceedings, which is confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal.
➡️ Admittedly, the visual similarities between the products and promotional campaigns clearly establish the existence of a “nascent” lawsuit, a prerequisite under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the marketing of the Caudalie product could constitute unfair and parasitic competition.
➡️ However, La …
