Casa de Fruta seems a bit ugly to me; I think it should be Casa de la Fruta.
The meaning of de here does not express ownership, but material.
¿De quién es la casa? La casa es de la fruta.
Who owns the house? The fruit owns the house.
¿De qué está hecha la casa? La casa está hecha de fruta.
What's the house made of? The house is made of fruit.
If we use de without any article, it may mean the material that the house is made of (fruit).
For example, the chocolate house in "Hansel and Gretel" fairy tale.
La casa de chocolate.
¿De qué está hecha la casa? La casa está hecha de chocolate.
What's the house made of? The house is made of chocolate.
When to use del or de la as ownership? When you refer to any subject that is not a person.
El collar del perro está hecho de cuero.
The dog's collar is made of leather.
When to use de (without article)? When you refer to any subject that is a person.
El coche de Manolo es verde.
Manolo's car is green.
Also you could use a poetry license, using an object or an animal like if it were a person; that's named Personificación or Prosopopeya.
That could be the case, if Fruta is acting like a person, so able to be the owner of the house. But I think this is not such a case, as you wrote FruitHouse, instead of Fruit's House.
EDIT: Last times we can see things like Casa de Fruta, or Casa de Vinos, without article, but I guess it's a flawed translation from english trends. We have a lot of example where traditionally we use it with article, like La casa del pueblo, La casa del inmigrante, La casa del libro.