Sommaire
Introduction
In the fashion industry, a motif may perform several functions. It may decorate a garment, but it may also indicate its commercial origin. The legal characterisation depends less on the label chosen by the seller than on how consumers will actually perceive the sign on the product.
In a judgment of 19 February 2026, the Paris Judicial Court applied this approach to T-shirts reproducing a stylised lion’s head close to the central figurative element of the semi-figurative Zelys Paris trademark. The decision provides useful guidance on trademark use, the comparison of a composite mark, the effect of a second trademark appearing on a label and, above all, the importance of evidence when seeking effective remedies (Paris Judicial Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st Section, February 19, 2026, Case No. 22/13133).
Facts: the reproduction of a stylised lion’s head on T-shirts
Two individuals jointly owned French semi-figurative trademark No. 4 520 372, filed on 30 January 2019 for goods including those in Classes 14, 18 and 25. The mark combined the words “Zelys Paris” with a stylised lion’s head surrounded by peripheral graphic elements.
The owners had granted non-exclusive licences to two companies active in the purchase and sale of clothing. After identifying T-shirts reproducing the lion motif, the licensees obtained authorisation to carry out an infringement seizure at the seller’s premises and subsequently brought trademark infringement proceedings. The licensees also relied on unfair competition and free-riding.
Two T-shirt references were at issue. Both reproduced the stylised lion’s head, while some models also displayed the word “Zelys” in the background. The colours, the words surrounding the design and certain peripheral elements nevertheless differed from the registered mark.
The seller mainly argued that the lion’s head was merely an ornamental element commonly used on garments and was therefore not used as a trademark. It further relied on the “Belman” label attached to the products, which, in its view, identified their actual commercial origin and excluded any likelihood of confusion.
Decision: the motif was used as a trademark and created a likelihood of confusion
1. The position and visibility of the motif established trademark use
The Court first examined the function actually performed by the contested signs. It observed that they appeared very prominently on the chest of the T-shirts, a position where many trademarks are commonly displayed. The average consumer could therefore perceive the motif as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods.
The allegedly decorative nature of the design was not sufficient to exclude infringement. The judgment does not establish that every motif placed on the chest automatically constitutes a trademark. Rather, it shows that position, size, visibility and the overall context of presentation must be assessed together.
2. The reproduction was not identical, but the imitation infringed the mark
The Court first rejected identical reproduction. The T-shirts did not reproduce every element of the registered mark, in particular the complete wording “Zelys Paris”, and some differences could not be regarded as insignificant.
It nevertheless found infringement by imitation. Visually, the stylised lion’s head was reproduced in its entirety. It was the central and most important element of the mark, while the differences mainly concerned colours, wording and peripheral ornamentation. The visual and conceptual similarity was considered high, despite low phonetic similarity.
According to the Court, consumers who do not necessarily see the signs side by side could interpret the differences as mere variations of the logo. They could therefore believe that the T-shirts originated from Zelys Paris or from an economically linked undertaking.
3. A label bearing another trademark did not remove the likelihood of confusion
The word “Belman” appearing on a label attached to the product did not alter the assessment. That indication was significantly less visible than the motif displayed on the chest and was therefore insufficient to prevent consumers from attributing an origin-identifying function to the stylised lion.
This finding is particularly relevant in fashion, where several signs may coexist on the same item: a manufacturer’s mark, a retailer’s mark, a collection name, a prominent graphic or a collaboration name. Adding another sign does not necessarily remove the risk created by the dominant reproduction of an earlier trademark.
4. Remedies were closely tied to the evidence actually produced
The defendant was held liable for trademark infringement. It was ordered to pay EUR 3,000 to each joint owner and to cease selling garments reproducing the stylised lion’s head, subject to a penalty of EUR 300 for each infringing item identified during a six-month period.
The damages nevertheless remained limited. The profits established by the evidence amounted to only EUR 170, and no evidence showed the existence of additional stock. The Court therefore refused to order destruction or confiscation and rejected publication of the judgment as disproportionate in light of the limited infringing volume.
ZS Diffusion was awarded EUR 170 for unfair competition after proving that it had marketed goods under the mark before the infringing acts. By contrast, the other licensee’s claims were dismissed because it failed to establish its own use of the trademark and the confusion affecting its business. The free-riding claims were also rejected because the alleged investments and reputation had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Significance: practical lessons for the fashion industry
The decorative nature of a motif must be assessed in context
The decision confirms that there is no automatic divide between decoration and distinctiveness. The same graphic may be perceived as a mere ornament in one presentation and as a trademark in another. Its size, repetition, position, visual autonomy and sector practices may all influence that perception.
Businesses should therefore not assume that a graphic may be freely reproduced merely because it is used aesthetically on clothing. Clearance should cover existing figurative trademarks and the precise way in which the sign will be presented to the public.
A composite trademark may be enforced through its dominant figurative element
A mark combining words and a design must always be compared globally with the contested sign. The decision nevertheless demonstrates that the complete reproduction of its central figurative element may carry substantial weight even where the verbal elements are not copied.
Owners should identify visual components intended to be used independently and, where commercially justified, consider filing them as separate figurative trademarks. This may facilitate enforcement of an emblem regardless of later changes to the wording or graphic charter.
Evidence directly determines damages and available remedies
The most operational aspect of the judgment is the distinction between establishing infringement and quantifying its consequences. Even where infringement is recognised, the owner must document sales volumes, remaining stock, margins, the duration of marketing, harm to the mark and relevant expenditure in order to obtain substantial compensation.
Screenshots, invoices, purchase orders, bailiff reports, sales data, inventories and information obtained through an infringement seizure should be preserved and cross-referenced. Without such evidence, the court may limit damages and refuse measures such as destruction, confiscation or publication of the judgment.
Licensees must establish their own use and their own loss
A finding of infringement in favour of the owner does not automatically compensate every licensee. Each licensee must be able to establish its role in exploiting the trademark, the goods it markets, the investments it bears and its own loss.
Licence agreements should therefore organise the preservation of evidence of use, the reporting of sales figures, cooperation in infringement seizure proceedings and the allocation of enforcement and damages claims.
Digital monitoring remains essential
This decision highlights the critical importance of digital monitoring in protecting a trademark. Imitations of graphic motifs circulate rapidly on e-commerce websites, marketplaces and social media. Visual recognition tools may help detect variations close to a protected logo or graphic. They should nevertheless be combined with human legal review, as visual resemblance alone does not automatically establish trademark infringement.
- Register recurring figurative elements that genuinely identify the commercial origin of the brand.
- Preserve dated evidence showing how the motif is used on products and in advertising.
- Monitor new trademark filings, marketplaces, social media and retail websites.
- Immediately document volumes, prices, stock and sales channels when an infringement is identified.
- Include in licence agreements clear duties to provide evidence of use and cooperate in enforcement.
Conclusion
The judgment of February19, 2026 does not turn every motif appearing on a garment into a trademark. It does, however, confirm that the legal characterisation depends on consumer perception and the specific marketing context. A highly visible design placed where consumers commonly expect to see a source identifier may perform a trademark function and infringe an earlier right.
The decision also reminds owners and licensees not to overlook evidence. Protecting a motif, monitoring its reproduction and obtaining effective remedies are three separate steps, each of which depends on accurate documentation of use, the scale of the infringement and the resulting loss.
Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.
Q&A
How can you determine whether a graphic element should be protected through a separate trademark filing?
The answer depends on how the element is used over time. A separate filing may be appropriate where the design appears independently on products, packaging, stores or digital media, without always being accompanied by the brand name. Its stability, visibility to the public and ability to become an identifiable commercial reference should also be taken into account.
What evidence should be retained to enforce a figurative sign effectively?
The most useful evidence is that which shows how the public was actually exposed to the sign. Relevant materials may include catalogues, photographs of products and stores, packaging, advertising campaigns, social media posts, dated product pages, sales figures and documents relating to the creation of the design. These materials help establish use, visibility and commercial value.
Can the colour of a garment constitute a trademark in its own right?
Yes, subject to strict conditions. A colour may be registered as a trademark if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and enables consumers to identify the commercial origin of the product. The CJEU confirmed this principle in the Libertel judgment (C-104/01, 2003). The best-known example in the fashion industry is the Louboutin red sole, which the CJEU recognised as a valid trademark in 2018 (C-163/16) for the soles of high-heeled shoes.
Can an independent designer bring infringement proceedings without having registered a trademark?
A designer who does not own a registered trademark cannot bring an action on the basis of trademark law. However, they may rely on copyright protection, which arises automatically upon the creation of an original work, without any prior registration requirement. They may also bring an action for unfair competition or parasitism where a competitor unfairly benefits from their efforts or investment. These remedies are complementary and are often relied upon together in practice.
What time limits apply to trademark infringement actions in France?
A trademark infringement action must be brought within five years from the date on which the right holder became aware of the infringing acts, pursuant to Article L. 716-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code. This is a “rolling” limitation period, meaning that it runs separately from each distinct act of infringement. It is therefore essential to act promptly once an infringement is discovered, otherwise the claim may be held inadmissible.
This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.