In January 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the dispute between Bulgari and APM Monaco regarding alleged copyright infringement. Bulgari claimed that the defendant’s new jewelry collection resembled its well-known Serpenti collection. Although the court rejected the claim for copyright infringement, it established the existence of the concept of “parasitism” within the sphere of unfair competition – the defendant had knowingly exploited the reputation and recognizable image of the plaintiff in the relevant market. APM was ordered to compensate damages and withdraw several models from sale. 

Six months earlier, a similar decision was rendered in favor of the fashion house Chanel in a dispute against Jonak, regarding a shoe model that resembled Chanel’s iconic two-tone design. In this case as well, the Paris Court of Appeal concluded that parasitism existed – the defendant had taken advantage of Chanel’s popularity and reputation without any creative contribution of its own. 

The term parasitism originates from French law and represents a specific form of unfair market conduct. It arises when one party exploits the reputation, investment, or creative work of another, even when copyright infringement or other intellectual property rights violations are not established. In this way, parasitism fills a legal gap and enables protection against unfair market behavior, which does not necessarily involve direct copying but results in unjust enrichment at the expense of another. 

In the case between Maisons du Monde and Auchan, the court determined that the legal qualification of parasitism depends on the plaintiff’s ability to prove the existence of the following elements: 

• the existence of individualized economic value resulting from know-how, intellectual work, reputation, and investment, 

• inspiration or evocation of that economic value which provides a competitive advantage to the author of the parasitic conduct, 

• unjustified and intentional inspiration or evocation for the purpose of gaining benefit. 

Unfair competition and parasitism 

Looking again at foreign case law, European countries have regulated parasitic commercial practices within national laws and provisions on unfair competition, which led to inconsistent application. The introduction of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive created a unified framework for regulating unfair competition. 

Misleading commercial behavior that deceives consumers often overlaps with violations of intellectual property rights. 

Parasitism refers to a practice in which one market participant attempts to exploit the reputation, goodwill, or perceived quality of a competitor’s products or services for their own benefit, without investment or contribution that would justify such gain. This behavior typically involves imitation of branding, presentation, or market positioning to gain an unfair advantage in the market. 

In common law systems, such behavior is regulated through the legal doctrine known as passing-off, which protects market participants from imitation that harms their brand or reputation. Passing-off is treated as a tort and requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, resulting damage, and causation. 

Unfair competition in Serbia 

Article 41 of the Law on Trade regulates unfair market conduct as an act of a trader or service provider directed against another trader, service provider, or competitor, which violates codes of business ethics and good commercial practices and causes or may cause harm to another trader or service provider (competitor), particularly: 

1. by making false and offensive statements about another trader or service provider;
2. by disclosing information about another trader or their goods, service provider or service, aimed at damaging the reputation and business of that trader or service provider; 
3. by selling goods with markings, data, or forms that reasonably create confusion among consumers regarding the origin, quality, and other characteristics of the goods or service; 
4. by acquiring, using, and disclosing trade secrets without the consent of the holder, in order to hinder their market position; 
5. by promising or giving gifts of greater value, property or other benefits to other traders or service providers, to gain an advantage over competitors; 
6. by unauthorized display of quality marks, trust marks, or similar signs by the trader. 

Lawsuit for unfair market conduct 

Since unfair market conduct is prohibited, a trader or service provider who suffers damage due to such conduct has the right to compensation for both material and non-material damage due to harm to business reputation. 

A lawsuit for unfair market conduct (unfair competition) may request the determination of the unfair act, prohibition of its continuation, elimination of consequences, and compensation for damages. 

When determining the existence of non-material damage and its fair compensation, the court will assess the significance, duration, and intensity of the violation, its effect on the plaintiff’s business, the importance of the violated right, and the purpose of the compensation, ensuring it does not encourage motives incompatible with its nature and social purpose. 

A special subjective and objective deadline is prescribed for this lawsuit – it may be filed within 6 months from learning of the damage and the perpetrator, and no later than 3 years from the end of the act. Proceedings on a lawsuit for unfair market conduct are urgent. 

The court may also order that the judgment upholding the claim be published in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia” at the expense of the infringer. 

More on unfair competition can be found in this article: How to protect yourself from unfair commercial practices? – Advokat Lucija Vranešević Grbić Beograd 

Note: This text does not constitute legal advice, but reflects the personal opinion of the author.