Paris Court Finds Art Gallery Liable for Reproducing Luxury Trademarks on Decorative Objects

Paris Court Finds Art Gallery Liable for Reproducing Luxury Trademarks on Decorative Objects

On June 3, 2026, the Paris Judicial Court held that the commercialization of decorative objects reproducing Hermès trademarks exceeded the limits of freedom of artistic expression and constituted trademark infringement. The dispute involved a French art gallery that created and marketed metal drums, fire extinguishers, trays, chairs, and other decorative objects bearing Hermès’ word and figurative marks, promoting these products through its website and social media platforms. As a result, the defendant was ordered to compensate both the trade mark proprietor and its exclusive licensee, and to cease using the disputed signs, subject to a daily penalty payment.

In its defense, the defendant argued that the objects constituted artistic works and that its use of the trademarks was protected by freedom of artistic expression and the parody exception, asserting that the works consisted of juxtaposing luxury brand trademarks with everyday objects unrelated to the goods traditionally marketed by Hermès.

The Court acknowledged that European Union law permits the use of trade marks for artistic expression, provided that such use complies with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters and strikes an appropriate balance between intellectual property rights and freedom of expression. In the present case, however, the Court concluded that the defendant’s use of the trademarks fell outside the scope of that protection. According to the judgment, the signs were used for commercial purposes to promote and enhance the marketability of the defendant’s products by taking advantage of the reputation associated with the Hermès trademarks. The Court further found that such use was capable of leading consumers to believe that a commercial relationship existed between the parties, while allowing the defendant to derive an unfair commercial advantage from the prestige attached to the marks.

The Court also observed that the defendant’s social media posts contained promotional messages, direct references to the Hermès trademarks, and hashtags associated with the brand, demonstrating that the signs were not used solely as elements of artistic expression but also as marketing tools to promote the products offered for sale.

Accordingly, the Court found trademark infringement by reproduction with respect to the French word trademark “Hermès” (No. 1558350), the European Union figurative trademark “Hermès” (No. 8772436), and the European Union figurative trademark “H” (No. 010798551), holding that the defendant had reproduced those signs without authorization on products covered by the respective trademark registrations. By contrast, the claim relating to the international figurative trademark “H” (International Registration No. 1109591, designating the European Union) was dismissed. The Court noted that this registration covered categories of goods different from those commercialized by the defendant and that Hermès had based its claim exclusively on infringement by reproduction, which requires identity between the protected goods and those at issue. Since the claimants neither pleaded infringement by imitation nor advanced arguments regarding the similarity of the relevant goods, the Court held that it could not remedy that omission on its own initiative.

In addition to trademark infringement, the Court found that the defendant had engaged in acts of unfair competition against the exclusive licensee, concluding that the systematic reproduction of the trademarks was capable of creating confusion as to the commercial origin of the products. Conversely, the claim for parasitism was dismissed because the licensee failed to establish that each of the infringed signs constituted an independent economic asset with a distinct and demonstrable economic value, as required under French case law.

As a consequence, the defendant was ordered to cease using the trademarks in the course of trade, subject to a daily penalty payment, and to pay €15,000 to Hermès International as compensation for the damage arising from the trademark infringement, as well as €15,000 to Hermès Sellier for the acts of unfair competition. The request for publication of the judgment was denied on the grounds that such measure would be disproportionate.

The judgment reinforces that freedom of artistic expression does not constitute an unrestricted authorization to use third-party trademarks. While artistic works may, in certain circumstances, reproduce distinctive signs, such protection is likely to be denied where the use serves a commercial purpose, exploits the reputation of the trademark, or is capable of creating the impression of an economic connection between the trademark proprietor and the creator or seller of the work.

In Brazil, trademark law also permits, in certain circumstances, the use of third-party trademarks without authorization in scientific or literary works, as well as in any other type of publication, provided that such use is not for commercial purposes and does not impair the trademark’s distinctiveness. Accordingly, although it concerns the laws of another jurisdiction, the French precedent may contribute to the discussion of this issue under Brazilian law.

The decision can be accessed through the link: Décision Tribunal judiciaire de Paris : RG n°23/15690 | Cour de cassation