Introduction

Since July 2, 2026, a business monitoring the French trademark register may identify a potentially conflicting application filed by an individual without having access to that applicant’s full address. For individual applicants, the French Official Industrial Property Bulletin and the National Trademark Register now disclose only the applicant’s surname, first names, municipality and country of residence. The reform enhances privacy protection, but it also changes the practical sequence of enforcement for owners of earlier rights.

The change stems from Decree No. 2026-576 of June 30, 2026, which modernises several procedures before the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). The key issue is not so much to recover a postal address at all costs as to preserve the timetable for defending one’s rights: in opposition proceedings, the deadline is strict and short. The strategy should therefore be built around the procedural deadline first, and then supplemented, where useful, by amicable approaches or identification measures.

What Decree No. 2026-576 changes for individual applicants

The applicant’s full address is no longer published in the BOPI

Article R. 712-8 of the French Intellectual Property Code, in force in its amended form since July 2, 2026, provides that where the applicant is an individual, the published information identifying that person is limited to the surname, first names, municipality and country of residence. The reform therefore concerns public disclosure: the individual’s precise street address no longer appears in the BOPI publication. It applies to ongoing proceedings in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Decree.

The same limitation applies to the National Trademark Register

Article R. 714-2 applies the same approach to the National Trademark Register. Legal entities are not covered by that limitation; their registered office remains part of their identification in the register.

The address nevertheless remains filing information

Redaction does not mean that the INPI no longer collects the applicant’s address. Current INPI filing guidance still requires a full address to identify an individual applicant. The reform therefore draws an important distinction between :

  • information required by the Office to administer the application and
  • information made available to the public. This distinction is essential to understanding the precise scope of the system.

Why address redaction changes the response to a conflicting filing

Before the reform, access to a postal address often made it possible to send an early cease-and-desist letter and seek withdrawal, limitation of the list of goods and services, or a coexistence agreement. Since July 2, 2026, that first contact may be more difficult when the application has been filed by an individual in their own name.

The principal risk is spending too long trying to identify the applicant and allowing the opposition period to expire. Under Article L. 712-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, an opposition may be filed within two months following publication of the application. The INPI likewise states that opposition to a French trademark application must be filed within that strict period and through its online system.

In this context, filing a formal opposition may be a particularly useful strategic step. It enables the opponent to preserve its rights within the mandatory two-month period, without having to submit the full arguments immediately. Pursuant to Article R. 712-14 of the French Intellectual Property Code, the statement of grounds and certain supporting documents may indeed be filed within an additional one-month period following the expiry of the opposition deadline.

This mechanism therefore makes it possible to secure the proceedings while allowing additional time to identify and contact the applicant, enter into negotiations and seek an amicable solution, such as the total or partial withdrawal of the application, a limitation of the goods and services, or the conclusion of a coexistence agreement. If an agreement is reached, the opposition may subsequently, depending on the circumstances, be withdrawn or become devoid of purpose.

The concealment of the address should therefore not result in delaying action: where the opposition deadline is approaching, it may be preferable to file the opposition in order to preserve the earlier rights, and then use the additional period to pursue amicable discussions in parallel.

For more information on opposition proceedings and the key steps to take before the INPI, we invite you to read our previously published article: “Opposition in France and the European Union: How to effectively respond to a trademark opposition?”.

Which strategies should rights holders implement?

1. Detect early and, where necessary, file an opposition directly

The first adjustment is organisational. Monitoring of French applications, as well as relevant EU and international filings, should identify conflicts as soon as they are published. Where the legal conditions are met, an opposition can be filed without knowing the applicant’s postal address because the INPI itself handles notifications within the proceedings.

Depending on the circumstances, an opposition may rely on an earlier trademark, company name, trade name, signboard or domain name with more than local significance, among the earlier rights recognised by the Code. The relevant framework is set out in Articles L. 712-4 and R. 712-13 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Filing an opposition does not exclude settlement. Article R. 712-17 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides, in particular, for suspension on a joint request by the parties for four months, renewable twice. Proceedings may therefore secure the timetable while preserving room for negotiation.

To learn more about trademark monitoring and anticipating potential conflicts, we invite you to read our article: “How to build in 2026 a trademark filing and management strategy to secure, structure, and anticipate risks”.

2. Seek a contact channel without delaying the proceedings

The absence of a public postal address does not make contact impossible. Where the applicant is already using the disputed sign, professional contact details may appear:

  • on a website,
  • in legal notices,
  • on a professional profile,
  • in a business register,
  • in commercial documentation.

An email or website contact form may open a dialogue, provided evidence of the exchanges is retained and the wording remains legally measured.

The approach must nevertheless be parallel rather than sequential: settlement discussions must not be allowed to consume the opposition period. If an agreement is reached, the opposition can subsequently be withdrawn or adjusted in line with the agreed commitments.

3. Use lawful identification channels where a precise address is genuinely required

In some matters, a precise address may still be necessary, for example to arrange formal service of court documents or to conduct targeted investigations. Depending on the circumstances, relevant sources may include the French National Business Register, the Trade and Companies Register, mandatory website legal notices, other appropriate public databases, or a disclosure mechanism where a .fr domain name is involved.

Where necessary, a pre-trial evidentiary measure may also be considered, subject to its statutory conditions, under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. That provision allows a court to order legally permissible measures where there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before trial, evidence of facts on which the resolution of a dispute may depend. It does not create an automatic entitlement to obtain an address; the request must be justified, proportionate and directed at the person or body likely to hold the relevant information.

4. If opposition is no longer available, consider invalidity proceedings

Once the opposition period has expired and the trademark has proceeded to registration, an invalidity action may be appropriate where the statutory conditions are satisfied. Applications based on certain earlier rights fall within the jurisdiction of the INPI when brought as principal claims, under Articles L. 716-2 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code. Public access to the proprietor’s street address is therefore not, in itself, a condition for bringing the administrative action.

The absence of a general limitation period for certain invalidity claims should not encourage inaction. Article L. 716-2-8 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides for acquiescence where the owner of an earlier right has knowingly tolerated the use of a later registered trademark for five consecutive years, except where the later registration was filed in bad faith.

For further information on challenging an already registered trademark, we invite you to read our article: “Trademark invalidity and revocation proceedings: how should businesses choose the right action and secure their case?”.

Practical guidance for rights holders

For rights holders, the reform increases the value of structured monitoring of the French register. The decisive issue is no longer whether a letter can immediately be sent to the address shown in the BOPI, but whether the filing can be detected, the relevant earlier right can be identified and a decision on opposition can be made quickly.

  • Protect the two-month deadline: monitoring should surface relevant applications promptly after publication.
  • Centralise evidence: trademark certificates, reputation evidence, proof of use and documents supporting other earlier rights should be readily available.
  • Coordinate proceedings and settlement: an opposition can preserve rights while allowing a parallel discussion with the applicant.
  • Check representation requirements: persons without a domicile or registered office in the European Union or European Economic Area may be required to appoint a qualified representative under the French Intellectual Property Code.
  • Foreign companies seeking to protect and enforce their trade marks in France may also consult our guide specifically dedicated to the rules of French trade mark law applicable to them: Guide to French trademark law for international businesses.

Conclusion

The increased confidentiality of individual applicants’ addresses changes the timing of enforcement more than the substantive rights available to trademark owners. When a conflicting filing is detected, the first priority is to preserve the opposition deadline. Amicable channels, public-source investigations and, where necessary, judicial tools can then be used to identify or contact the applicant. Active monitoring and a prepared procedural strategy have therefore become even more important.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

What can be done if the opposition deadline has already expired?

The expiry of the opposition period does not necessarily mean that no further action is available. If the contested trademark has been registered, its validity may, depending on the earlier rights relied upon and the circumstances of the case, be challenged through invalidity proceedings before the INPI. An amicable approach to the trademark owner may also remain possible in order to seek withdrawal, a limitation of the goods and services, or a coexistence agreement.

Does address redaction apply where a trademark has several co-applicants?

The limitation on public disclosure follows the legal status of each applicant. Where a filing has several proprietors, the public information relating to each one must therefore be considered according to whether that proprietor is an individual or a legal entity. Co-ownership does not alter an individual applicant’s legal nature.

How can a rights holder avoid mistakes where several individual applicants have the same name?

A matter should never be identified by the applicant’s name alone. The application number, filing date, trademark, classes, specification of goods and services, municipality and country are important cross-checks before any contentious or settlement step is taken.

Can a rights holder established outside the European Union file an INPI opposition without a representative?

No, where the holder is neither domiciled nor established in a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area. In such cases, a representative authorized to act before the INPI must be appointed. This may notably be a French intellectual property attorney or a lawyer. The French Intellectual Property Code also provides, subject to certain conditions, for representation by other authorized professionals, including certain practitioners established in the European Union or the European Economic Area.

Has the address-redaction reform changed the cost of an INPI opposition?

No. The privacy measure did not itself amend the opposition fee. At the date of this publication, the INPI states that an opposition based on one earlier right costs EUR 400, with an additional EUR 150 for each additional earlier right relied upon.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.