Counterfeiting of an Armchair Model: When Originality Prevails over Prior Art

You have just bought a magnificent designer armchair for your living room in Tonnay-Charente. Proud of your find, you show it to a friend. "Hey, it's the same as the one in the corner shop?" This simple remark sends a chill down your spine: is your purchase a copy? And what if the original creator claims damages from you?

This situation is experienced every year by hundreds of owners and professionals. The line between original creation and counterfeiting is sometimes blurred. How do you know if a model is truly new and protected against copies? The decision of the Court of Cassation of 27 February 1978 (No. 76-12.534) provides valuable insight.

In this case, the judges found that the disputed armchair clearly stood out from prior models. Even if certain elements were already known, the original combination created a distinct and recognisable configuration. In other words: originality can arise from a new arrangement of old elements.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Let's go back to 1970. The company Hille, specialised in designer furniture, holds the rights to an armchair model created by one Day. This armchair, with its clean lines, enjoys a certain success. But then the company Forges de Strasbourg Surcroît begins manufacturing a seat that closely resembles Hille's. This resemblance is not to Hille's liking, and Hille sues Forges de Strasbourg for counterfeiting.

The trial begins. Hille produces a deed dated 1 February 1972 by which Day assigned to it "all of his rights" in the model. For its part, Forges de Strasbourg Surcroît raises prior art: according to it, Day's model was not new because similar armchairs already existed. The lower court (Court of Appeal) hears the case. They examine both models, compare the lines, proportions, and overall balance. Their conclusion: the Hille model clearly stands out from the prior art invoked. It has a distinct and recognisable configuration, the result of an original combination of elements that were known separately.

Forges de Strasbourg Surcroît does not accept this and appeals to the Court of Cassation. It argues that the lower court did not sufficiently justify its decision and wrongly dismissed the prior art. But the Court of Cassation dismisses the appeal: the lower court had sovereignly assessed the novelty of the model, without contradicting itself, and had legally justified its decision. The judgment is final.

The Court's Reasoning — Explained

To understand this decision, one must grasp the mechanism of model counterfeiting. Under French law, a model is protected if it is new and has individual character (Articles L511-1 et seq. of the Intellectual Property Code, implementing the European Directive). Novelty is assessed against the prior art: if an identical or nearly identical model has already been disclosed, it is not new.

But what happens when the disputed model uses known elements but arranges them differently? The lower courts here have a margin of appreciation: they may find that the original combination gives the model a distinct and recognisable configuration, and therefore novelty. That is exactly what they did in this case.

The Court of Cassation, in its review, does not overturn this factual assessment. It only verifies that the lower courts did not violate the law (for example, by requiring an exact prior art, i.e., a model identical in every respect). In this case, the judges properly justified their decision by describing the visual differences between the models. They dismissed the prior art argument because the prior art was not "exact": the similarities were partial and did not concern the overall configuration.

In short, this decision confirms that originality can arise from a new arrangement. It does not constitute a reversal or a major development, but it illustrates the sovereign power of the lower courts in assessing novelty. A useful reminder: it is the trial and appeal judges who "see" the models and compare them; the Court of Cassation does not redo this work.

What This Means for You — Practical Consequences

Whether you are a creator, manufacturer, retailer, or simple buyer, this case law has practical consequences. Take an example: you are a cabinetmaker in Rochefort and you create a chair by combining a known curved backrest with an original base. If a competitor copies your model, you can sue for counterfeiting, provided the overall arrangement is new and recognisable. It is not necessary for every element to be new.

If you own a designer piece of furniture and discover it is a counterfeit, you may be pursued by the rights holder. However, if you acted in good faith (you were unaware of the counterfeiting), your liability may be reduced. Courts take good faith into account, but beware: since the Law of 11 March 2014, professional buyers are presumed to know the rights of creators.

For a tenant who sublets a furnished flat with copies, the risk is real: the owner of the original model can claim damages and the destruction of the counterfeit furniture. In Tonnay-Charente, I handled a case where a landlord had to pay €8,000 in damages to a creator for renting a flat with unauthorised replicas.

If you are in this situation, you should: verify the origin of your furniture, keep your invoices, and if in doubt, consult a specialist lawyer. The time limit for bringing a counterfeiting action is 3 years from the discovery of the infringement (Article L521-2 of the IPC).

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Conduct a prior art search before starting production. Consult the databases of the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) and professional catalogues. An investment of a few hundred euros can save you from an expensive lawsuit.
• Register your models with the INPI. Registration gives you a certain date and makes it easier to prove ownership. The cost is modest (around €350 for a national registration). Without registration, you can rely on copyright, but proof is more complex.
• Keep all creation documents. Sketches, photos, prototypes, invoices for raw materials: any dated item can serve to establish the priority of your creation. Use the Soleau envelope (INPI) or deposit with a bailiff.
• When buying designer furniture, require a guarantee of originality. Include a clause in the sales contract where the seller certifies that the item is original and indemnifies you against any counterfeiting action. If a problem arises, you can recourse against the seller.
• If you are sued, do not neglect the prior art defence. If you believe the opposing model is not new, gather evidence of prior art (patents, earlier catalogues, press articles). This defence can succeed if the prior art is "exact".

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1978 decision is part of a consistent line of Court of Cassation rulings. We can cite the judgment of 5 March 1991 (No. 89-17.958) which states that "the novelty of a model is assessed by an overall comparison with known prior art" and that "minor differences are not enough to exclude counterfeiting". More recently, the Court of Cassation clarified in a judgment of 13 September 2017 (No. 16-14.152) that individual character is assessed in light of the overall impression produced on the informed observer.

The trend of the courts is therefore to favour a global approach: it is not the detail that matters, but the overall effect. This approach is consistent with European law (Directive 98/71/EC on designs and models). For the future, we can expect judges to be increasingly attentive to original combinations, even from known elements, thus favouring the protection of creators.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an exact prior art? It is a prior model identical in every respect to the disputed model. If the prior art only has partial similarities, it is not enough to destroy novelty.

Can I be sued for buying a counterfeit piece of furniture at a flea market? In theory yes, but in practice, if you are a private individual not acting in the course of trade and in good faith, the risk is low. Rights holders mainly pursue manufacturers and professional resellers.

What is the time limit for bringing a model counterfeiting action? The limitation period for a counterfeiting action is 3 years from the discovery of the infringement (Article L521-2 of the IPC). After this period, you can no longer sue.

Do I need to register my model to be protected? No, copyright protects works of the mind from creation, without formalities. However, registration with the INPI facilitates proof and offers stronger protection (presumption of ownership).

What should I do if I receive a cease and desist letter for counterfeiting? Do not reply hastily. Consult a specialist lawyer. Check the validity of the right invoked (is the model truly new?) and the scope of protection. Negotiation is often possible.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →