French courts have significantly tightened their approach to intellectual property enforcement over the past year. Rights holders who have relied on passive registration strategies are now exposed to meaningful procedural and substantive risks that were less visible under earlier practice.
IP enforcement in France has undergone a notable shift in court practice, with tribunals applying stricter evidentiary standards in infringement claims and raising the threshold for establishing genuine use of registered trademarks. The Cour de cassation (Supreme Court of France) has reinforced these positions through a series of decisions that affect both domestic and internationally registered rights. Businesses holding French or EU-designating marks must now demonstrate more rigorous proof of use and market presence to sustain their rights in adversarial proceedings.
This alert explains what has changed, which business categories are most exposed, and the specific steps international companies should take before the compliance window closes.
What has changed in French IP enforcement practice
French intellectual property courts have moved in a discernible direction over recent months. Three interconnected shifts define the current environment.
Stricter genuine use requirements. Under French intellectual property legislation, a registered trademark may be cancelled if it has not been put to genuine use within the relevant period. Courts have consistently narrowed what qualifies as genuine use. Token sales, sporadic online activity, and internal distribution within a corporate group no longer carry the weight they once did. A SARL (limited liability company in France) or SAS (simplified joint-stock company in France) holding a mark purely for defensive purposes faces a materially higher cancellation risk than in earlier periods.
Elevated evidentiary bar for infringement claims. Plaintiffs in contrefacon (trademark and copyright infringement) proceedings now face more searching judicial scrutiny of their evidence packages. Courts have raised expectations around the documentation of harm, the chain of title for rights, and the territorial scope of any licensing arrangements. Evidence gathered by a huissier de justice (court-appointed enforcement officer in France) remains the gold standard, but courts have made clear that a huissier report alone is no longer sufficient without supporting commercial context.
Opposition proceedings and Nice classification alignment. The Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (French national IP office. INPI) has updated its guidance on opposition proceedings and the acceptable breadth of Nice classification (the international system for classifying goods and services in trademark applications) filings. Overly broad IP registration strategies are now being challenged at opposition stage with greater success. International companies that filed wide-class trademark applications to maximise protection are finding those registrations vulnerable to partial cancellation.
These shifts interact with developments under French commercial legislation, collectively referred to as the Code de commerce (French commercial code), which governs the enforcement of commercial rights more broadly. Rights holders operating through French entities or relying on French registrations to block infringing imports must review their enforcement posture in light of all three changes simultaneously.
To assess whether your current IP portfolio is exposed to these developments, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com for a preliminary portfolio review.
Who is affected and the compliance timeline
The changes described above affect a wide range of international businesses. However, the exposure is not uniform. Certain categories face immediate risk, while others have a short window to act.
High-priority categories:
- Companies holding French or EU trademark designations with limited documented use in the French market over the past several years
- Businesses that registered broad Nice classification coverage without a corresponding commercial footprint in France
- International groups using French subsidiaries – whether SARL or SAS structures – as IP holding vehicles without active licensing or commercialisation activity
- Rights holders who have initiated or plan to initiate an infringement claim in France without a comprehensive huissier-led evidence package
- Companies that have received opposition proceedings notices against pending French trademark applications
Compliance and action timeline. There is no single statutory deadline tied to these judicial developments. The risk is ongoing and compounds over time. However, the practical urgency arises from two sources. First, a competitor or third party can file a cancellation action at any point. The longer a vulnerable registration remains unaddressed, the larger the window for an adverse challenge. Second, the shift in INPI's approach to opposition proceedings means that pending applications filed under broad-class strategies may be refused or narrowed at any stage of the current examination cycle.
For businesses already involved in French IP litigation, the evidentiary shift is immediate. Courts are applying the new standards to proceedings filed before the shift became visible in published decisions. This means that an infringement claim drafted under the former evidential assumptions may need to be supplemented or restructured before the next hearing date.
For businesses with passive registrations, a six-to-twelve-month window exists to build a defensible use record before the risk of a well-resourced cancellation challenge becomes acute. That window is narrowing. Businesses with operations in other EU jurisdictions should also review whether these French developments affect their broader European IP strategy – our analysis of intellectual property services in France sets out the full procedural environment.
Companies operating at the intersection of IP and emerging technology should also note that French AI regulation is beginning to interact with copyright enforcement. Our team has tracked these intersections closely in our analysis of AI law in France.
Immediate actions for international companies
The following steps address the most pressing risks identified above. They are listed in priority order for a company that has not yet reviewed its French IP position in light of current court practice.
1. Conduct a use-evidence audit. For every French or EU-designating trademark within your portfolio, compile the available evidence of genuine use in France. This means commercial invoices, marketing materials, distribution agreements, and digital analytics tied to the French market. Identify gaps where use is thin or undocumented.
2. Review Nice classification scope. Compare your current registrations against actual commercial activity in each class. Where classes are significantly broader than current or planned use, assess whether a voluntary narrowing or a complementary filing better serves your defensive position. Broad registrations that cannot be defended are a liability, not an asset.
3. Commission a huissier evidence package if litigation is contemplated. If an infringement claim is planned or already in progress, engage a huissier de justice to document the infringing activity before the next procedural step. Supplement the report with commercial harm evidence. French courts expect both.
4. Audit pending opposition proceedings. If a trademark application is currently in opposition before INPI, reassess the opposition strategy in light of the updated guidelines on Nice classification breadth. A poorly structured opposition may now succeed against your application where it would previously have been dismissed.
5. Review IP holding structures. For SARL or SAS entities holding IP without active commercialisation, document intercompany licensing arrangements and ensure royalty flows and usage rights are properly recorded. Courts scrutinising genuine use increasingly look at whether the entity holding the mark is the entity that actually uses it commercially.
For a tailored strategy on IP enforcement in France, reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com. Our team can assess your specific exposure and recommend prioritised action steps. You may also find it useful to compare French developments with related enforcement alerts, including our recent update on IP enforcement developments in Portugal.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our intellectual property practice covers trademark registration, IP registration strategy, opposition proceedings, and infringement claim management across France and throughout the EU. We combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to provide internationally accessible legal counsel. As a law firm in France with cross-border reach, we support international entrepreneurs, technology companies, and institutional investors in protecting and enforcing their IP rights across multiple legal systems. The firm's IP team has advised on matters before the INPI and in French commercial courts, and participates in cross-border practice groups focused on European IP strategy. To discuss how the current French enforcement shifts affect your portfolio, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.