France: The French implementation of the EU trademarks directive

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

France: The French implementation of the EU trademarks directive

ip-policy-ghana-min-final.jpg

Order No 2019-1169 of November 13 2019 relating to trademarks incorporates Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of December 16 2015 and was published on November 14 2019.

It entered into force on December 11, with the exception of the provisions relating to invalidity and revocation procedures (these will enter into force on April 2020).

As a result of this new law, the requirement of graphic representation is no longer necessary. The absolute grounds for refusal now encompass appellations of origin, geographical indications, traditional terms for wine and traditional specialties, and earlier plant variety denominations. The provisions relating to collective trademarks have also been amended. Only applications filed from the entry into force of the order are affected.

The opposition procedure is now available for prior rights, including company names, commercial names and domain names, reputed trademarks, names, images of a public entity and trademarks filed in their own name by an agent or representative. Several earlier rights may be invoked. When applicable, proof must be provided for the five year period preceding the application date of the opposed trademark for the goods or services which serve as the basis of the opposition.

Procedural rules are also amended. These new rules concern trademark applications filed as of December 11 2019.

The FPTO will have now exclusive jurisdiction regarding actions based on absolute grounds or invalidity for non-use. The office will share jurisdiction with courts regarding actions based on relative grounds. The courts remain competent when there is a connected issue of unfair competition and in relation to infringement actions, investigative, interim or provisional measures. The action before the FPTO could be based on several grounds and/or rights.

This action will be inadmissible if, upon the request of the defendant, the opposing party cannot prove that his trademark was in use during the five year period preceding the action. He needs to prove that his trademark was used during the five year period preceding the application date of the later trademark and his trademark was registered for more than five years before this application date.

There is no limitation period attached to the invalidity action except for well-known trademarks. However, tolerance of use of the later registration for five years will make the action inadmissible.

The infringement action is extended to the offer, the placing on the market or the notable possession of packaging, labels, marks or any other support on which the trademark is attached and to merchandise in transit. The limitation period for infringement actions will now be five years from the day the right holder knew or should have known the last fact enabling him to exercise his right.

New official fees are also applicable from December 11.

Aurélia Marie

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article