In a judgment dated 26 September 2025, the Paris Judicial Court (3rd Chamber, 2nd Section) ruled in favour of Christian Dior Couture, finding several companies liable for the infringement of Dior’s models and trademarks through the sale of near-identical reproductions of its iconic sneakers.
While the decision reaffirms the robustness of French and EU legal mechanisms protecting fashion creations, it also highlights the limits of the current compensation system in ensuring a genuinely deterrent effect.
Christian Dior Couture brought an action against Clarosa, which operated an online sales platform, and its suppliers Gowin, Ewany Shoes, and Bello Star, alleging the unauthorized reproduction of several of its creations, including the Dior-ID, Walk’n’Dior high-top, B27 Mid, and D-Way models.
Following several bailiff reports and an authorized seizure for infringement (saisie-contrefaçon), Dior sued for copyright infringement, EU design infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition through parasitism.
The defendants challenged the validity of the bailiff’s reports, arguing a lack of independence of the third party who assisted with the test purchase. The Court rejected this claim, referring to the Mixed Chamber of the French Cour de cassation (12 May 2025, No. 22-20.739), which held that a potential lack of independence does not in itself invalidate a report unless it demonstrably affects its probative value.
The Court found that the operations were properly conducted under the bailiff’s control and that the reports were fully valid.
The Court confirmed the originality of two models:
Both models were deemed protected works under French copyright law (Articles L.111-1 and following of the Intellectual Property Code), and the reproductions by Clarosa and Gowin were held to constitute acts of infringement.
Conversely, the B27 Mid was denied protection, as its components were considered part of the common design corpus of high-top sneakers.
The Court also found infringement of the registered EU design No. 008058895-0001 relating to the Dior-ID, noting that the infringing products produced an identical overall visual impression on the informed user.
The B27 Mid, protected as an unregistered EU design, did not meet the same outcome: aesthetic differences were deemed sufficient to exclude infringement.
The Court further held that Clarosa had infringed Dior’s trademarks by marketing a blue sneaker reproducing the famous “Dior Oblique” pattern, thereby creating a clear risk of confusion.
Finally, Clarosa was found guilty of parasitic behaviour, having posted images on social media featuring its own products alongside a Dior bag, in order to take unfair advantage of the brand’s reputation.
Despite acknowledging multiple infringements, the Court awarded €4,000 in damages to Christian Dior Couture, together with an equivalent amount under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a €500 per-infringement penalty.
These modest sums were based on the limited number of sales proven (84 pairs sold at €8 each) and the minimal economic impact of the counterfeit goods, while nevertheless recognising the banalisation of Dior’s original creations.
This outcome reflects the strict evidentiary approach required by Articles L.331-1-3 and L.521-7 of the Intellectual Property Code, which oblige courts to assess damages based on proven loss, moral harm, and profits made by the infringer.
One may, however, question whether such low-level compensation can truly serve as a deterrent, in an industry where the value of a creation lies primarily in its image, exclusivity, and symbolic power.
The judgment in Christian Dior Couture v. Clarosa aligns with the recent case law of the Paris Judicial Court in the luxury and fashion sectors (Hermès v. Meermin, 19 May 2023; Chanel v. Jonak, 25 January 2024).
It confirms the consistency of French law in recognising copyright and design protection for fashion creations while exposing the structural limitation of a compensatory system dependent on strict proof of damage.
Ultimately, the decision raises an important question: how can French courts ensure the deterrent purpose of civil sanctions without adopting a system of punitive damages, as exists in certain common-law jurisdictions?
The issue remains open, at a time when creative value constitutes both an economic and cultural asset at the heart of the luxury industry.
