La Rosée v. Caudalie, Alleged Imitation of Sunscreen Packaging: The Paris Court of Appeal Dismisses Parasitism Claims and Confirms the Withdrawal of Ex Parte Seizure Orders

I. Facts and Background

Both La Rosée Cosmétiques and Caudalie operate in the natural skincare sector.

The dispute arose from the marketing of sunscreen sticks. La Rosée, which had launched its stick in 2022, accused Caudalie of adopting in 2024 a nearly identical packaging and communication concept, including similar colour codes, minimalist design, and the use of the same Italian manufacturer, Induplast.

Claiming to be the victim of a strategy of imitation and free-riding, La Rosée filed two ex parte applications under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure to obtain in futurum evidentiary measures against Caudalie.

The President of the Paris Commercial Court granted both applications.

Caudalie responded by seeking revocation of the ex parte orders and destruction of the seized materials.

In parallel, La Rosée initiated summary proceedings to obtain an injunction prohibiting the marketing of Caudalie’s “Vinosun Protect” stick, its withdrawal and public notice, and the payment of €780,000 in provisional damages for unfair competition and parasitism.

By an order dated 20 December 2024, the President of the Paris Commercial Court:

• revoked the ex parte orders of 23 July 2024;
• ordered the destruction of the seized documents;
• dismissed La Rosée’s claims for injunction, publication, and damages;
• and ordered La Rosée to pay €20,000 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

La Rosée appealed¹.

‍

II. Legal Grounds in Dispute

Before the Court of Appeal, La Rosée relied on:

• Article 145 CPC, governing pre-trial evidentiary measures;
• Articles 872 and 873 CPC, concerning summary proceedings in cases of urgency or manifestly unlawful disturbance;
• Article 1240 of the Civil Code, on tortious liability;
• and the general principle of fair competition.

La Rosée argued that it had a legitimate interest in obtaining evidence to prepare future proceedings, that there was a risk of destruction of proof justifying the ex parte procedure, and that Caudalie had engaged in acts of parasitism by appropriating its aesthetic and marketing efforts.

Caudalie denied all allegations, contending that the similarities arose from standard market trends, that the stick format pre-dated La Rosée’s launch, and that no exceptional circumstances justified derogation from the adversarial principle. It further argued that the seizure measures infringed the protection of trade secrets.

‍

III. The Court’s Reasoning

‍

1. On the revocation of the ex parte orders

The Court recalled that evidentiary measures under Article 145 require both a legitimate purpose and practical necessity, and that derogating from the adversarial process must be strictly justified.

While acknowledging that a “potential dispute” existed between the parties, the judges found that La Rosée already possessed ample publicly available evidence (advertising visuals, marketing materials, supplier links) and had failed to establish any concrete risk of evidence destruction.

Accordingly, the revocation of the ex parte orders and destruction of the seized documents were confirmed.

‍

2. On the requests for injunctive relief

The Court found that no urgency had been demonstrated under Article 872 CPC, as La Rosée had not substantiated any imminent or irreparable harm.

Regarding the alleged manifestly unlawful disturbance under Article 873, the Court held that the visual similarities between the two products reflected common aesthetic codes in the cosmetics industry — minimalist design, soft tones, and natural imagery — and did not constitute a violation of fair competition.

Both trademarks “La Rosée” and “Caudalie” were clearly visible and sufficiently distinctive.

Furthermore, Caudalie’s use of the same Italian supplier, initiated before La Rosée’s launch, could not be interpreted as evidence of unlawful appropriation.

‍

3. On the claim for provisional damages

As no manifestly unlawful conduct was established, the Court dismissed the request for provisional damages under Article 873-1 CPC.

‍

IV. The Decision and Its Implications

The Paris Court of Appeal fully upheld the lower court’s order of 20 December 2024, dismissed all of La Rosée’s claims, and ordered it to pay €25,000 to Caudalie under Article 700 CPC, in addition to costs.

This decision, rendered in the highly competitive “clean beauty” sector, reflects the Court’s cautious approach in distinguishing between lawful inspiration and unlawful imitation in packaging design.

The judgment confirms that mere similarities in style, shape, or colour, when derived from market trends, do not suffice to establish parasitism or unfair competition.

However, the scope of this decision should not be overstated. It rests on very specific factual circumstances, notably the evidence of Caudalie’s prior development efforts and the absence of proven confusion.

One must keep in mind that claims of parasitism remain entirely admissible in the cosmetics industry, where subtle imitation of market leaders’ packaging is a frequent practice, often to the detriment of the most creative brands.