Candlelight concerts: lack of originality and absence of free-riding

Lyon Judicial Court, 23 April 2026, No. 25/08316

A company producing so-called “candlelight” concerts brought proceedings against one of its competitors, which had recently entered the market with a similar offering. The claimant alleged that the defendant had copied its entire communication universe — website, promotional video, general terms and conditions of sale, social media posts — and was staging its concerts in the same venues. Its claims were based on copyright infringement, as well as acts of unfair competition and free-riding.

The Lyon Judicial Court dismissed all of the claims.

As regards copyright infringement, the Court successively examined the three works relied on by the claimant: the website, the promotional video and the musical programming of the concerts.

With respect to the website interface, the Court found that the aesthetic choices relied on — a dark colour palette enhancing the orange tones of the candles, a lit piano as the main staging element, and a three-part structure — were also found on the websites of other operators in the sector and therefore did not evidence an individualised creative effort.

As regards the promotional video that was allegedly copied, the Court noted that the music used was royalty-free, that the simple editing of a royalty-free piece lacked originality, and that the appearance of words in white capital letters with a dramatic effect was a common practice in the entertainment sector.

As for the musical programming, the Court recalled that copyright protection for a composite work requires proof of originality specific to the combination itself — and not merely the juxtaposition of pre-existing works — which the claimant alleged but failed to establish.

As regards unfair competition and free-riding, the Court also dismissed each of the allegations.

The concept of candlelight concerts in exceptional venues, the combination of classical and contemporary repertoires, the wording used in the communications, the visual universe of the Instagram pages and promotional videos, the general terms and conditions of sale, the FAQ, the ticketing page, the use of a common ticketing provider, the similarity of the domain names and the selection of identical performance venues: for each of these elements, the Court found either that there was no individualised economic value attributable to the claimant, no wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, or no possible risk of confusion in light of the manifest differences between the two offerings. The Court also noted that this type of concept had already been operated by other players in the sector before the claimant entered the market.

This decision illustrates, once again, the essential distinction between an idea, which is not protectable as such, and its embodiment in a form capable of benefiting from protection. It also recalls that, on the separate ground of free-riding, the existence of individualised economic value must be demonstrated with precision and cannot be inferred from mere allegations that are insufficiently substantiated.