France's Douai Court of Appeal has confirmed that a work reproduced on Champagne bottles without authorisation constitutes copyright infringement. The decision reiterates that neither the accessory theory nor the tacit assignment protects companies exploiting a copyright-protected work without a clear contract, as Florence Chapin reports.
In its 20 November 2025 ruling, France’s Douai Court of Appeal reinforced the strict interpretation of the author's exclusive right to exploit their work. Rejecting both the accessory theory and the existence of a tacit assignment of economic rights, it upheld the conviction of a Champagne producer for copyright infringement due to the unauthorised reproduction of a work on its labels, packaging and digital media.
Background to the case
In 2015, an artist was commissioned to create a work entitled "The Oak" by a Champagne house, which had purchased the physical sculpture for €4,000. The Champagne house subsequently reproduced this work on its bottle labels, packaging and website.
The artist then filed a lawsuit in the Lille Judicial Court seeking recognition of copyright infringement and an injunction to stop the unauthorised use of the artwork. The court ruled in favour of the artist, a decision against which the Champagne house appealed.
The accessory theory: An exception required for strict interpretation
The accessory theory, based on French case law, allows, in certain circumstances, for the classification of an act as copyright infringement to be dismissed when the protected work appears in a secondary and incidental manner within a larger work.
It has been accepted to occur when the work:
- is not the primary object of the reproduction;
- is not highlighted;
- and is not sought for its own sake.
Legal scholars emphasise, however, that this theory does not constitute an independent exception to copyright law, but rather a method for assessing the substantial nature of the reproduction. It is based on a concrete analysis of the economic function of the work within the context of the dispute.
In this case, the work "The Oak" was reproduced:
- on the bottle labels,
- on the packaging, and
- on the company's website.
The court noted that the image of the work contributed directly to the product's visual identity and its commercial value.
This analysis aligns with a jurisprudential trend of rejecting the benefit of the accessory theory when the work contributes to the economic appeal of the product or service. Since it contributes to the commercial differentiation strategy, it cannot be considered ancillary.
In other words, the ancillary aspect ends where the promotional function begins.
Tacit assignment: Tolerance does not imply assignment
One of the important points addressed here by the French Court of Appeal concerns the defence of tacit assignment.
Indeed, the fact that the artist did not object for several years (more than six years) to the reproduction of their work on the labels of the "Esprit Nature" vintage does not allow for the conclusion that there was a tacit assignment of the intangible right. Such an assignment is strictly regulated.
Article L.131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code requires that each of the assigned rights be the subject of a separate mention and that the scope of exploitation be precisely defined (extent, purpose, location, duration).
Case law derives from this a principle of restrictive interpretation of assignments.
Tacit assignment is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, when the intention to assign arises from unequivocal circumstances.
Similarly, the decision implicitly reiterates a fundamental principle: ownership of the physical medium is independent of ownership of the intangible rights.
The payment of €4,000 for the creation of the work covered only the physical creation. In the absence of an express stipulation, neither a general authorisation for reproduction nor an assignment of economic rights could be inferred.
Three key points from the ruling
The court thus reiterates that:
- commissioning a work does not constitute an assignment of rights,
- a fixed fee does not constitute authorisation for exploitation,
- the intention to assign must be unequivocal and precisely defined.
This strictness protects the author against an implicit dilution of their rights, but it requires increased vigilance from companies.
Practical consequences and compensation
—Subsequent confirmation of infringement:
To assess compensation, the court reiterated the requirements of the French Intellectual Property Code, which mandates consideration of both the economic impact of the infringement, the moral prejudice suffered by the author, and the profits generated by the unlawful exploitation of the work.
The Court confirmed the infringement and the harm suffered by the artist, validating:
- the submission of an accounting statement under penalty of a fine to assess the damages,
- the award of a provisional payment of €30,000 (Article L331-1-3 of the IP Code),
- the dismissal of the company's legal action in the absence of manifest fault.
This decision underscores the importance of securing exploitation rights contractually for any commissioned work.
—Two essential principles to take away
The 20 November 2025 ruling confirms two fundamental principles:
- The accessory theory remains an exceptional provision and cannot cover deliberate commercial exploitation.
- The tacit transfer of economic rights cannot result from the commission, payment or physical delivery of the work.
This decision serves as a welcome reminder for commissioning companies: securing exploitation rights through contracts is not a matter of excessive formalism, but a legal necessity.
To find out more about any of the points covered by this article, speak to your Novagraaf attorney or contact our team.
Close
