Van Cleef & Arpels and Louis Vuitton are two powerhouses in the luxury goods industry. Before we get into the story here are some things you may need to know. Van Cleef are a French luxury jewellery house, owned by conglomerate Richemont. In 1968, they introduced the four leaf clover Alhambra Collection, which is now the brands staple. Louis Vuitton, on the other hand, is a French fashion house known for its extensive range of products, including clothing, handbags, and jewellery. Now that’s covered lets get into the case…
Van Cleef vs Louis Vuitton : Round 1
The case starts in 2015 when Louis Vuitton introduced a new jewellery collection named “Blossom”. In Paris, Cartier and Richemont International are responsible for marketing, financing and advertising of Van Cleef. They sought legal action against Louis Vuitton for free riding which is when someone benefits from something without incurring the costs of production/development.
They claimed that Louis Vuitton’s Blossom collection replicated the Alhambra’s:
- Aesthetic: The same four-leaf clover design made with similar materials.
- Colors: Similar colors of semi-precious metals were chosen.
- Size: Products of similar sizes were available.
- Pricing: Products were sold in the same price range.
- Advertising and communications: Comparable strategies and themes were used in marketing.
The case went to The Paris Commercial Court, which deemed Louis Vuitton liable for free riding. They were ordered to pay €200,000 in compensation and were prohibited from selling the Blossom collection. Adding insult to injury, they were ordered to pay €120,000 to cover the legal costs.
But the story doesn’t end there. Louis Vuitton didn’t become the biggest fashion house by giving up. They took the case to Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal overturned the previous decision and ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton. They recognised the iconic nature of the Alhambra and legally defined it as a “perfectly symmetrical four-leaf clover in semi-precious hard stone surrounded by a beaded precious metal and double-sided”. The judge decided that the LV blossom did not meet these characteristics and noted that the shape also exists in other brands. They also argued that many aspects which they claimed had been copied were customary in the jewellery industry.
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, ordering Cartier and Richemont to pay €50,000 to Louis Vuitton for legal costs to .
Personal Thoughts
The similarities between the two designs are evident. Although the four-leaf clover has become synonymous with Van Cleef, its shape has been used by many other brands over time which the Court of Appeal noted
Considering that both Van Cleef and Louis Vuitton operate in the same realm of luxury, it’s understandable that Van Cleef might feel they’ve been copied. However, this design is not far from Louis Vuitton’s typical design language, highlighted by the fact that they trademarked it in 1996. In my opinion, while this doesn’t seem to be a direct copy, the similarities are so clear that Louis Vuitton should have exercised greater caution.
As always let us know your thoughts in the comments.