Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5 – Chamber 2, 11 July 2025
In a decision handed down on 11 July 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal found Mulanka liable for copyright infringement of Hermès Sellier’s famous “Oran” and “Izmir” sandals. Recognising the originality and copyright protection of these emblematic luxury creations, the Court sanctioned the unauthorised reproduction of their essential features through copycat products distributed via separate commercial channels.
Hermès Sellier, the appellant, is the registered proprietor of French design No. 971181-040, filed on 26 February 1997, corresponding to the “Oran” sandals. It also asserted copyright ownership over both the “Oran” and the masculine “Izmir” versions.
A television report broadcast on 4 June 2020 revealed that the boutique “Sabatyk,” operated by the company Mapinko, was selling infringing sandals supplied by Mulanka. Hermès obtained an order for an infringement seizure (saisie-contrefaçon) on 23 June 2020, executed on 3 July 2020, confirming the presence of imitative products.
Hermès filed suit for copyright and design infringement and unfair competition. On 7 July 2023, the Paris Judicial Court partially upheld the claims but awarded only symbolic damages (€1,000 against Mapinko and €500 against Mulanka). Hermès appealed.
The Court upheld Hermès’ entitlement to the presumption of ownership under Article L.113-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, affirming that:
“Hermès Sellier is entitled to rely on the presumption of ownership of the economic rights in the ‘Oran’ and ‘Izmir’ sandals” (Judgment, p. 14), as it had “filed a French design in its own name and has continuously marketed the sandals under a name clearly associated with it in the public’s mind.”
The court noted that the assignment agreements were signed personally by the designer, Mr H.W., and formed part of commissioned design contracts that clearly defined the scope of the work.
The Court confirmed the originality of the sandals, stating:
“The tribal-inspired central strap, shaped like an H, combined with a flat sole and a minimalist structure, presents undeniable distinctiveness” (p. 15),
thereby meeting the originality threshold required for copyright protection.
Pursuant to Articles L.122-4 and L.335-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, infringement is assessed “by reference to similarities, not differences.” The Court found that two of the disputed references (1155 and 1180) replicated key elements of Hermès’ creations, including:
The Court concluded:
“These sandals reproduce the original characteristics of the ‘Oran’ and ‘Izmir’ models, and the few differences observed—such as curved seams or decorative stitching—do not attenuate the overall resemblance” (p. 19).
Other references were not found to be infringing, due to rounded openings, beaded embellishments, or visual divergences that altered the overall impression (p. 20).
Hermès also relied on its now-expired French design registration No. 971181-040. However, the Court considered that the designs marketed by Mulanka did not generate the same overall visual impression for the informed user. Accordingly, it confirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the design infringement claim under Articles L.513-4 and L.513-5 of the Intellectual Property Code.
Applying Article L.331-1-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, the Court quantified damages as follows:
Total compensation of €25,282.35 was awarded jointly against Mapinko (liquidation estate) and Mulanka.
The Court prohibited Mulanka from offering for sale or marketing the infringing sandal references 1155 and 1180, under a penalty of €500 per breach, effective two months from notification of the decision and for six months.
It rejected the requests for:
Conclusion
This well-reasoned ruling reaffirms the protection afforded under copyright law to iconic luxury designs—even those characterised by minimalist aesthetics. The Paris Court of Appeal clearly distinguished between lawful inspiration and unlawful imitation, relying on precise legal standards and a detailed comparison of the goods.
For luxury brands such as Hermès, this case underscores the importance of a proactive, evidence-based enforcement strategy. As the Court acknowledged, unauthorised copies “trivialise and degrade the prestige associated with original creations” (p. 22).
In a globalised market where infringing goods are easily disseminated through diverse retail channels, legal vigilance remains a critical component of luxury brand strategy. Protecting creativity is not a one-off action but a long-term commitment—one that must be pursued relentlessly and without compromise.
