France: France introduces new trademark law

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: France introduces new trademark law

Sponsored by

beau-de-lomenie.png
Hand of man signing signature filling in application form document

The new trademark law implementing the EU Directive has been applicable since December 11 and has introduced important changes.

The requirement of a graphic representation has been abandoned and a new official fees system is applicable to allow filing and renewing for one class only. Absolute grounds for refusal now include appellations of origin, geographical indications, traditional terms for wine, traditional guaranteed specialities and earlier plant variety denominations. Provisions relating to collective trademarks are also amended.

The opposition procedure is available for new prior rights: company names, commercial names, domain names and reputed trademarks.

It is also open to public entities in case there is an attempt on their name, image or repute or if there is a likelihood of confusion for the public. Opposition can also be filed against trademarks filed by an agent or representative without authorisation. Several earlier rights may be invoked in one opposition procedure.

Proof of use is now to be provided for the 5-year period preceding the application date of the opposed trademark and for all goods or services which serve as basis for the opposition.

New provisions relating to invalidity or revocation procedures entered into force on April 1 2020.  

The French PTO now has exclusive jurisdiction for actions based on absolute grounds or invalidity for non-use. No interest to act is required from the demanding party. The office shares jurisdiction with courts regarding actions based on relative grounds of invalidity. The courts remain competent when there is a connected issue of unfair competition, and remain exclusively competent regarding infringement actions, and investigative, interim or provisional measures.

The action for invalidity can be based on several grounds and/or rights. However, it is inadmissible if the prior trademark invoked was not used during the five year period preceding the date of the action except if there are proper reasons for non-use. It is also the case if this trademark has been registered for more than five years, and was not used during the five year period preceding the application date of the challenged trademark. Similar provisions apply to reputed trademarks or trademarks for which distinctiveness was acquired through use.

There is no more limitation period attached to invalidity actions, with the exception of actions based on well-known trademarks, for which there is a five year limitation period, except in the case of bad faith. However, in all cases, an invalidity action will be inadmissible if the applicant knew about the later registered trademark and tolerated its use for five years.

The French PTO has been working on the implementation of invalidation procedures by recruiting and training new people. Despite the emergency state brought about by COVID-19, they are available from April 1.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
The court ruled against the owner of the ‘Umbro’ mark, despite noting that post-sale confusion can be a legitimate ground for infringement
Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Gift this article