In a particularly detailed decision dated 15 January 20261, the 3rd Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court ruled on a dispute between companies of the Orangina-Schweppes group, exploiting the Oasis beverage and its long-running “P’tits Fruits” advertising saga, and Capri Sun AG, concerning the dissemination on YouTube of the commercial film “Capri Sun Multi Fruits”.
Beyond the rivalry between two marketing concepts, the judgment provides a structured and instructive analysis of three key areas: originality in copyright law and the notion of a “common stock” of ideas, the requirement of genuine use in trade mark law, and the assessment of unfair competition and parasitism where creative themes are widely shared.
The Court first recalled the fundamental principles under Articles L.111-1 and L.112-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code: copyright protection arises from the mere fact of creation, provided that the work bears the imprint of the author’s personality. It is for the claimant to identify precisely the features that embody such originality.
In this case, the Orangina-Schweppes companies claimed copyright protection in eleven advertising films featuring anthropomorphic fruits evolving on a tropical island, within a humorous universe structured around wordplay and dynamic staging. They argued that originality derived from the combination of characters, exotic setting and playful tone.
The Court drew a decisive distinction. The mere representation of humanised fruits, the use of a lush tropical island with waterfalls and volcanoes, and the humorous promotion of fruit-based beverages were considered elements belonging to a pre-existing and widely used advertising and audiovisual repertoire. Such elements form part of a “common stock” and cannot be monopolised as such. In line with established case law, ideas, themes and general concepts remain free for all to use.
However, the Court acknowledged originality in several Oasis films on the basis of the specific combination of creative choices: structured storytelling, carefully sequenced scenes, recurring puns, choreographed movements, and distinctive characterisation of each fruit. What is protected is not the general universe, but the particular arrangement and expression of that universe.
Yet, despite recognising originality, the Court rejected the claim of infringement. The similarities identified in “Capri Sun Multi Fruits” related solely to elements belonging to the common stock, tropical island, animated fruits, festive atmosphere. The contested film did not reproduce the specific narrative structure, the distinctive humour, or the individualised character traits that underpinned the originality of the Oasis films. In the absence of reproduction of the protectable elements, copyright infringement could not be established.
The judgment thus firmly reiterates that copyright cannot be used to privatise an advertising genre or thematic universe, even if it has been exploited consistently for many years.
The trade mark dimension of the case constitutes one of the most rigorous aspects of the decision.
Faced with counterclaims for revocation, the Court examined whether the marks relied upon had been put to genuine use for beverages in Class 32 during the relevant five-year period. It recalled that genuine use must be real, public and effective, and must be made as a trade mark, namely, to identify the commercial origin of the goods concerned.
The evidence submitted proved insufficient. Certain publications fell outside the relevant period, others were not publicly accessible, and several social media posts did not link the sign relied upon to the marketing of beverages. The Court emphasised that mere activity on social networks does not in itself constitute genuine use if the sign is not used to designate the goods covered by the registration.
As a result, several French and EU trade marks were revoked for lack of genuine use, leading to the inadmissibility of the related infringement claims.
With regard to the remaining trade mark claims, the Court focused on whether the contested film used the alleged signs “as trade marks”. It found that the commercial origin of the product was clearly conveyed through the constant and prominent display of the Capri Sun pouch and the repeated use of the Capri Sun word mark. The anthropomorphic fruits functioned as narrative devices, not as indicators of origin. Since the essential function of the trade mark, guaranteeing origin, was not affected, infringement could not be established.
The Court also declared invalid the French trade mark “Source naturelle de fun” (“Natural source of fun”) for lack of inherent distinctiveness. The expression was considered immediately descriptive or laudatory in relation to beverages, and the simple graphic stylisation was insufficient to confer distinctiveness. The decision confirms the well-established principle that promotional slogans cannot be monopolised where they are perceived as purely descriptive or advertising statements.
Turning to unfair competition, the Court reiterated that liability requires, in particular, a fault likely to create a risk of confusion. An assessment of the overall impression led the Court to exclude any likelihood of confusion, even by association, given the constant and clear identification of the Capri Sun brand throughout the contested film.
As regards parasitism, French case law requires the identification of a specific, individualised economic value and proof that the defendant sought to place itself in the claimant’s wake in order to benefit from its investments or reputation. The Court found that the association of anthropomorphic fruits and a tropical island belonged to a widely shared creative repertoire predating the Oasis saga. The thematic proximity alone was insufficient to establish the appropriation of a distinct economic value.
The judgment therefore makes clear that the law of unfair competition cannot be used to compensate for the absence of an exclusive intellectual property right over a general concept or advertising universe.
Conclusion
This decision stands as a significant ruling in advertising and intellectual property litigation. It underscores that copyright protects a specific and individualised creative combination, not a theme; that genuine use of a trade mark requires concrete use as an indicator of origin for the registered goods; and that claims of confusion or parasitism must be grounded in a precise and rigorous legal analysis rather than in broad similarities of atmosphere.
In doing so, the Court reaffirms a fundamental balance: intellectual property rights must remain confined to their legitimate scope and cannot be extended so as to restrict freedom of creation and competition beyond what the law allows.
1 Paris Judicial Court (Tribunal judiciaire de Paris), 15 January 2026, No. 23/08700
