Nathalie Dreyfus

Introduction

The second phase of the reform of the European design law has applied since July 1st, 2026. It follows the first series of changes that entered into force on May 1st, 2025 and completes the most significant modernisation of the European design protection system in more than twenty years.

This new phase is based in particular on codified Regulation (EU) 2026/715, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/137 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/138. It is also accompanied by new Guidelines issued by the EUIPO, applicable since 1July 1st, 2026.

The reform adapts design protection to contemporary forms of creation, including digital interfaces, animations and complex products, while also amending several rules relating to filing, the representation of designs and invalidity proceedings.

Up to ten static views to represent a design

Applicants may continue to represent their designs by means of static views in JPEG format. However, the maximum number of views permitted for a single design has increased from seven to ten.

This change provides greater flexibility to represent a product from different angles or to draw attention to specific details of its appearance. It may be particularly useful for complex products, packaging, spare parts or creations whose characteristics are only visible from a particular perspective.

The increase to ten views also facilitates coordination between EU filings and applications filed in countries that already accept a larger number of representations.

New formats for protecting digital and animated creations

The reform introduces two new forms of representation:

• a dynamic representation, corresponding to a three-dimensional digital reproduction that may be filed in OBJ or STL format;
• an animated representation, submitted as a video file in MP4 format.

Only one dynamic or animated representation may be filed for each design. These new formats make it possible to protect complex products, graphical user interfaces, movements, visual transitions and animated sequences that cannot always be adequately represented through static images.

However, these new possibilities should not lead applicants to file 3D files or videos systematically. The format chosen directly contributes to defining the subject matter of the protection. An animation should therefore only be filed where the movement or transition genuinely forms part of the creation that the company seeks to protect.

One type of representation per design

For each design, the applicant must choose between a static, dynamic or animated representation. These different formats cannot be combined within a single design.

However, a multiple application may include several designs relating to the same product. A company could therefore file:

• a first design represented through several static views;
• a second design represented through a three-dimensional file;
• a third design represented through an animation.

This strategy makes it possible to seek complementary forms of protection, provided that each representation independently complies with the applicable filing requirements.

It may also be useful where the company intends to claim priority from the EU filing in other countries. Not all national offices necessarily accept dynamic or animated files. The parallel filing of static views may therefore help secure future international extensions.

Certain errors may now be corrected

Since 1 July 2026, representations may be amended in respect of immaterial details, either before or after registration, without losing the original filing date.

This may make it possible, for example, to introduce a neutral background or to remove or disclaim an element that is so insignificant that it would go unnoticed by the informed user.

However, this possibility does not allow the applicant to substantially alter the design filed or to extend the scope of protection after filing. Its practical usefulness will therefore largely depend on how the EUIPO interprets the concept of “immaterial details”.

In practice, applicants should not regard this procedure as a means of correcting every error affecting their representations. Careful preparation of the filing remains essential, since a significant inconsistency or the omission of an essential feature may not be capable of correction.

Invalidity applications must be prepared more thoroughly from the outset

The reform also strengthens the requirement to present arguments and evidence at the beginning of cancellation proceedings.

An application for a declaration of invalidity must now set out precisely the facts, legal grounds and evidence on which it relies.

This change is intended to limit insufficiently substantiated claims and accelerate the handling of cases. In particular, uncontested invalidity applications based on a lack of novelty or individual character may be processed as a matter of priority.

Rights holders must therefore prepare their case in advance by identifying the earlier designs, establishing the date and circumstances of their disclosure, explaining their relevance and presenting a structured visual comparison.

Where the invalidity application is based on an earlier trade mark that has been registered for at least five years, the owner of the contested design may, under certain conditions, request proof of genuine use of that trade mark. The system therefore brings design proceedings closer to certain rules already applicable in trade mark matters.

New procedural possibilities

The unauthorised use of certain emblems, flags, coats of arms and official signs protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention now constitutes a ground for refusal that may be raised ex officio.

In addition, the continuation of proceedings in design matters is now available in respect of certain missed time limits. The request must be filed within two months following the expiry of the relevant time limit and is subject to the payment of an official fee.

Lastly, the EUIPO may also revoke a decision or a recordal in the Register containing a manifest error attributable to the Office, in particular where it failed to take into account a rule of law or a decisive circumstance. Such revocation may take place within one year from the date of the relevant decision or entry.

What should businesses do since July 1st 2026?

• review their internal filing procedures to take account of the new static, three-dimensional and animated formats;
• identify digital assets that may be eligible for protection,
• choose the representation format according to the subject matter actually claimed,
• anticipate international extensions by checking whether the representations used can serve as a basis for priority claims in the relevant jurisdictions;
• verify the consistency of the views and visual disclaimers before filing;

Conclusion

The second phase of the reform makes the European design law better suited to current technological and commercial realities and provides businesses with new opportunities to protect their creations.

However, this greater flexibility is accompanied by an increased need for precision. Businesses should therefore review their filing practices and integrate the protection of digital creations into their broader intellectual property strategy.

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 & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

How long is a European Union design protected?

Registration is valid for five years and may be renewed for five-year periods, up to a total of twenty-five years.

Does a design have to be registered to be protected in the European Union?

No. An unregistered design may be protected for three years from its first disclosure in the European Union, but this protection is more limited.

Can a company introduce a product before filing a design application?

Yes, a twelve-month grace period may apply. However, it is still preferable to file the application before any public disclosure.

Who owns a design created by an employee?

It depends on the circumstances of the creation, the applicable law, and the contracts. Ownership must therefore be clearly defined.

Does a European design allow a company to take action against any similar creation?

No. The analysis is based, in particular, on the overall impression made on an informed user and on the claimed features.

Can different representation formats be combined?

No. For a single design, the applicant must choose between static views, a 3D file or an animation. However, different formats may be used within a multiple application.

Can a representation be corrected after filing?

Yes, but only in respect of immaterial details. The correction must neither substantially alter the design nor extend the scope of protection.

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

Introduction

Since August 12, 2026, Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) has generally applied throughout the European Union, subject to provisions governed by later implementation dates. It applies to companies that sell products with packaging, regardless of the industry in question, including food products, cosmetics, clothing, electronic equipment, toys, industrial goods, as well as the packaging itself. EPR compliance for packaging is no longer merely an environmental obligation that takes effect after the sale. For online platforms falling within the relevant rules, it has become part of the gateway to the sales channel itself.

Article 45 requires the online platforms concerned to obtain, before allowing a producer to use their services, information demonstrating the producer’s registration in the EPR register of the Member State where the consumer is located, together with a self-certification confirming compliance with packaging EPR obligations. Platforms must also make best efforts to assess the reliability and completeness of that information, including by checking available public databases or online interfaces. The practical effect is clear. An EPR documentation failure can now become a direct market-access issue.

Why has packaging EPR compliance become a marketplace access control?

Article 45 turns online platforms into compliance gatekeepers

The key change is procedural. EPR compliance is no longer checked only through environmental authorities, producer responsibility organisations or national reporting systems. It may now be examined at the very point at which a seller seeks access to an online market.

The PPWR does not establish a universal rule automatically removing every undocumented listing on August 12, 2026. Actual restriction or suspension procedures will also depend on the platform’s compliance process and contractual terms. Nevertheless, a platform subject to Article 45 cannot indefinitely disregard unreliable or incomplete registration information when EU law expressly requires it to collect and check such information.

There is still no single EU-wide EPR registration number

Although the PPWR harmonises the framework, it does not immediately replace national producer registers with one European number. Identifying the relevant EPR obligation requires an assessment of where packaging or packaged products are first made available in a Member State and where the packaging is expected to become waste. Cross-border e-commerce therefore requires a country-by-country and supply-chain analysis.

For distance sales, holding a registration in the seller’s home Member State does not, by itself, constitute an EU-wide EPR passport. This explains why Article 45 focuses on the relevant registration in the Member State where the consumer resides.

In France, the IDU, authorised representation and data consistency require immediate attention

The French IDU must cover the correct legal entity and EPR stream

Under Article L. 541-10-13 of the French Environmental Code, producers subject to EPR must register and receive a unique identifier, or IDU. ADEME specifies that an IDU is assigned by EPR sector. A company holding an identifier for electrical equipment, for example, cannot rely on it as proof of registration for packaging.

The IDU must also be disclosed in the general terms and conditions of sale or another contractual document supplied to the buyer and, where the producer operates a website, under conditions comparable to those applicable to statutory website information.

France already imposed specific obligations on electronic interfaces under Article L. 541-10-9 of the Environmental Code. The PPWR now reinforces this approach at EU level by introducing an express pre-access verification mechanism.

Foreign sellers must review their representative arrangements

Since July 10, 2026, Article L. 541-10-9-1 of the French Environmental Code requires a person not established in France but subject to French EPR obligations to appoint, in writing, a natural or legal person established in France to ensure compliance with the obligations covered by the mandate, subject to the statutory exception concerning certain electronic interfaces.

At EU level, an important legislative development must not be confused with existing law. The Commission has proposed suspending until January 1, 2035 certain PPWR authorised-representative requirements for producers established in one Member State and operating cross-border. As at August 13, 2026, procedure 2025/0395(COD) remains legislative work in progress; the proposed suspension cannot yet be treated as applicable law.

Why does the PPWR matter to trademark owners and packaging strategies?

“Manufacturer” and EPR “producer” are separate legal concepts

For international groups, licensors and trademark owners, looking only at the company physically producing the goods can lead to the wrong conclusion. Commission guidance distinguishes the manufacturer, responsible for relevant packaging compliance obligations, from the producer, which bears EPR responsibilities in the Member State concerned. Depending on the supply chain, both roles may be held by the same entity or by different entities.

Where packaging is designed or manufactured under a company’s own name or trademark and the PPWR criteria are satisfied, the brand owner may therefore fall within the manufacturer analysis. Licence, manufacturing and distribution agreements should clearly address who determines the materials, dimensions, artwork and other packaging characteristics. Contractual drafting, however, cannot override a statutory qualification imposed by the PPWR.

For further background, see our analysis of the impact of packaging regulation on trademark and design owners.

Packaging placed on the market after 12 August also requires review

The immediate compliance exercise goes beyond EPR registration. Article 15 requirements include information allowing packaging and its manufacturer to be identified, such as a type, batch, serial or other identification element and the manufacturer’s name, trade name or registered trademark and relevant contact details, under the conditions laid down by the Regulation.

Adding such information, including through QR codes where permitted, can alter packaging artwork and should therefore be coordinated with trademark, design and copyright portfolios.

What should companies audit now to prevent online sales disruption?

We recommend treating PPWR and EPR compliance as a market-access audit:

• map products, packaging formats, destination countries and sales channels;
• identify, for each flow, the manufacturer, EPR producer, importer, distributor, trademark owner and seller-account entity;
• verify national registrations and, in France, the correct packaging IDU;
• reconcile EPR declarations with actual volumes and confirm outstanding contributions;
• review the need for and scope of representative mandates;
• prepare a marketplace evidence file containing registration evidence, PRO certificates, self-certification, declarations and supporting records;
• align company names, addresses and producer identities across registers, PRO records, terms of sale, invoices and seller accounts;
• review packaging traceability and amend licence, manufacturing, import and distribution agreements where required.

What are the risks of failing to demonstrate packaging EPR compliance?

The most immediate risk is commercial: seller onboarding may fail, further evidence may be requested, an offer may be restricted, or sales may be interrupted in accordance with the platform’s applicable procedures. The PPWR therefore turns an environmental compliance issue into a potential product-availability and brand-exploitation risk.

French administrative exposure is separate. Article L. 541-9-5 of the Environmental Code provides, in particular, for an administrative fine of up to €30,000 for specified failures relating to registration, reporting or disclosure of the IDU. The statutory enforcement regime also provides for a daily penalty of up to €20,000 in relevant circumstances.

Conclusion

The PPWR applicable since August 12, 2026 changes the compliance sequence. For online platforms within scope, businesses can no longer assume that packaging EPR formalities may simply be regularised after launch. They must be able to identify the correct producer, evidence its registration, provide consistent self-certification and substantiate compliance before an administrative discrepancy becomes an obstacle to sales.

Protecting a trademark now also requires protecting the legal ability to place the branded product on the market.

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.

Q&A

Does the PPWR apply to sales made through a company’s own e-commerce website?

Yes. The producer’s EPR obligations remain applicable. However, the specific prior-verification mechanism applicable to intermediary online platforms does not apply in the same way to a seller marketing products directly through its own website.

Are B2B sales subject to the marketplace verification mechanism under the PPWR?

The specific mechanism under Article 45 targets platforms enabling consumers to conclude distance contracts with producers. A business operating exclusively on a B2B basis must nevertheless comply with the other PPWR and EPR obligations applicable to it.

Are products distributed free of charge covered by the PPWR?

Yes. The concept of making packaging available also covers packaging supplied free of charge in the course of a commercial activity. Samples and promotional campaigns must therefore be included in the compliance assessment.

Do fulfilment service providers also have verification obligations?

Yes, in certain circumstances. The PPWR also imposes specific obligations on fulfilment service providers when they enter into contractual relationships with producers.

Does an EPR contribution paid in one Member State remain valid if the product is ultimately marketed in another?

Not necessarily. Where contributions have been paid in one Member State but the packaging is subsequently made available for the first time in another, a reimbursement mechanism may need to be applied, as EPR obligations must ultimately be fulfilled in the relevant Member State.

Does the PPWR also apply to packaging for products imported from outside the European Union?

Yes. The Regulation applies to packaging placed on the EU market, including packaging accompanying products imported from third countries. The origin of the product therefore does not exempt the operator from PPWR and EPR compliance obligations.

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.

Introduction

Cancellation and revocation proceedings can remove all or part of an existing trademark registration, but they address different defects and operate at different stages in the life of the trademark. Invalidity challenges whether the trademark should ever have been registered. Revocation concerns events arising after registration, primarily the absence of genuine use.

Should the trademark be declared invalid or revoked?

Invalidity challenges the original validity of the registration

An invalidity application argues that the trademark should not have been registered. It may rely on absolute grounds, which relate to the intrinsic characteristics of the sign, or relative grounds, which arise from a conflict with an earlier right.

Absolute grounds may include:

• lack of distinctive character;
• an exclusively descriptive or customary sign;
• a deceptive trademark;
• a sign contrary to public policy;
• bad faith at the filing date.

Any natural or legal person may rely on an absolute ground without owning an earlier right. Relative invalidity, however, may be requested only by the owner or authorised beneficiary of the right relied upon, such as an earlier trademark, corporate name, trade name, domain name or other protected sign.

Invalidity may be total or limited to certain goods and services. Where it is granted, its effect is generally retroactive: for the affected goods or services, the registration is treated as though it had never produced legal effects.

Revocation addresses events occurring after registration

Revocation does not challenge the trademark’s validity at the filing date. It sanctions circumstances that arose during the life of the registration.

The most common ground is the absence of genuine use of the trademark for an uninterrupted period of five years. Revocation may also be sought where the trademark has become the customary name for the relevant goods or services, or where the way in which it is used has become misleading.

Any person may apply for revocation. In non-use proceedings, the trademark owner bears the burden of proving genuine use for the contested goods and services. Evidence may take any form, but it must allow the authority to assess the commercial reality of the use as a whole.

Revocation normally takes effect on the filing date of the application, although an earlier date may be selected where the ground for revocation had already arisen.

Should the application be filed with the INPI or the judicial court?

The INPI has primary jurisdiction over standalone applications

Since April 1, 2020, most standalone invalidity and revocation applications against French trademarks have fallen within the jurisdiction of the INPI. The proceedings are conducted electronically through online portal.

The INPI may consider invalidity based on absolute grounds; relative invalidity falling within the statutory scope of its jurisdiction; revocation for non-use; revocation based on a trademark becoming generic or misleading.

Its jurisdiction covers French trademarks and international registrations designating France. An EU trademark must be challenged before the EUIPO rather than the INPI.

The judicial court retains jurisdiction over connected disputes

The Judicial Court remains competent where invalidity or revocation is raised:

• as a counterclaim in trademark infringement proceedings;
• in connection with another claim already pending before the court;
• on the basis of an earlier right outside the INPI’s administrative jurisdiction;
• in certain cases where evidentiary or interim measures have already been initiated.

A general relationship between two disputes is not sufficient. The claims must be closely connected and involve the same parties.

How to prepare an admissible and persuasive application?

An application cannot merely identify a registration and refer to a broad legal ground. It should specify:

• the contested trademark and its owner;
• the relevant goods and services;
• every legal ground relied upon;
• the earlier rights asserted;
• the facts establishing the alleged defect or conflict;
• the precise scope of the requested sanction.

The applicant’s arguments, claims and evidence must be organised in a single, structured statement. Although some formal defects may be remedied, the possibility of correction should never be used as a substitute for proper preparation. The workshop identified a correlation between the absence of professional representation and the increase in inadmissible applications.

Where both invalidity and revocation are sought against the same registration, two separate applications must be filed.

Invalidity and revocation proceedings before the INPI

The proceedings begin with an electronic filing. Once admissibility has been reviewed, the trademark owner generally has two months to submit a response. Further adversarial exchanges may follow within the limits set by the procedural rules. An oral hearing may be arranged at a party’s request or on the INPI’s initiative.

Since July 2, 2026, the statutory period within which the INPI must issue its decision after the investigation phase closes has increased from three to four months, including for proceedings already pending on that date. This period must be distinguished from the overall duration of the case, which includes written submissions and any suspension.

Official fees, recoverable costs and appeals

The official filing fee is EUR 600, with an additional EUR 150 for each earlier right relied upon beyond the first. Each party normally bears its own expenses, but a party may request that the INPI order its opponent to contribute to certain procedural costs.

The INPI addresses costs in 55% of its decisions and grants at least part of the requested amount in 68% of cases where costs are claimed. Where bad faith is established, the Institute may award the maximum available amount.

The decision is recorded in the French National Trademark Register and may be challenged before the territorially competent Court of Appeal. Any appeal strategy should therefore be assessed immediately after notification, based on the reasoning adopted and the arguments and evidence already submitted.

Conclusion

Trademark invalidity and revocation proceedings are now central tools for managing, clearing and defending trademark portfolios. Their accessibility should not obscure their technical nature. The legal ground, jurisdiction, scope of the earlier rights and quality of the supporting evidence must all be assessed before proceedings are initiated.

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.

Q&A

What is the difference between invalidity and revocation?

Invalidity addresses a defect existing when the trademark was filed. Revocation concerns a later event, such as the absence of genuine use for five years. Invalidity generally has retroactive effect, whereas revocation normally takes effect from the filing date of the revocation application or from an established earlier date.

Who must prove genuine use?

In non-use revocation proceedings, the contested trademark owner bears the burden of proving genuine use. The evidence must establish real, public and external commercial use for the relevant goods and services.

Can an INPI decision be appealed?

Yes. INPI decisions on invalidity and revocation applications may be challenged before the competent Court of Appeal. The applicable time limit and procedural requirements should be reviewed immediately upon notification.

Can a trade mark be invalidated or revoked only in respect of certain goods or services?

Yes. Invalidity and revocation may concern only part of the goods and services covered by the registration where the ground relied upon does not affect all of them in the same way.

What happens to licence agreements or assignments relating to a trademark that has been declared invalid?

Since invalidity takes effect retroactively, it retrospectively undermines all legal transactions entered into in reliance on the trademark. The parties may, however, depending on the circumstances, invoke the doctrine of apparent right or the general rules of contract law governing termination and restitution.

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.

Introduction

Since August 2, 2026, the use of artificial intelligence in advertising must be assessed at two levels:

• The first concerns transparency obligation relating to the use of AI, as provided for in Article 50 of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, certain provisions of which entered into application on that date ;
• The second covers the rules that already apply to commercial communications, including the accuracy of claims, intellectual property, image rights, data protection and contractual responsibility.

However, not every use of AI needs to be disclosed to the public. The transparency obligation primarily applies to content constituting deepfakes, as well as to certain texts concerning matters of public interest. Standard retouching, background removal or preparatory assistance therefore do not automatically trigger a disclosure requirement. Conversely, the absence of such a disclosure never exempts the advertiser from complying with the rules governing misleading commercial practices or with third-party rights.

When must advertising using AI be disclosed?

Article 50 distinguishes providers from deployers

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 allocates duties between the provider of an AI system and its deployer.

• A provider develops the system or markets it under its own name. It must enable the identification of synthetic output through machine-readable marking, except where the system merely performs standard editing or does not substantially alter the input data or its meaning.
• A deployer uses the system under its authority for professional purposes. A trademark, advertising agency or production company may therefore be a deployer. Employees acting under a company’s control are not separate deployers.

Contractual allocation remains important, but it cannot override the legal qualification resulting from the parties’ actual control over the advertising process.

Advertising deepfakes require visible disclosure

Under the European Commission Guidelines published on July 20, 2026, deployers must disclose AI-generated or manipulated image, audio or video content that resembles an existing person, object, place, entity or event and could falsely appear authentic or truthful. An intention to deceive is not the sole consideration. The assessment also reflects the level of resemblance, the message conveyed, the deployment context and the expectations of the audience.

A wholly fictional avatar that does not resemble an existing individual is therefore not automatically a deepfake under the statutory definition. Disclosure may nevertheless be required under consumer law or advertising self-regulatory rules where the avatar is presented as a genuine customer, expert or witness and is capable of misleading the audience.

The notice must be perceivable upon first exposure

Technical marking embedded by the provider is not, in itself, sufficient to satisfy the obligation to inform the public that may apply to the deployer. The European Commission’s transparency guidance requires clear, distinguishable and accessible disclosure no later than first exposure. An image may carry a visible notice, an audio advertisement may use an audible announcement, and a video may combine an icon with explanatory text.

The wording should identify the relevant element, for example: “ The character featured in this advertisement was generated using artificial intelligence.” A generic notice hidden in terms of use or shown only at the end of a sequence may be inadequate. For evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional works, the manner of disclosure may be adapted so that it does not interfere with the work, but the duty is not simply removed.

Why is labelling insufficient to secure a campaign?

Advertising claims must remain accurate and substantiated

Article L. 121-2 of the French Consumer Code prohibits false or misleading statements and presentations relating to a product’s essential characteristics, expected results, origin or the advertiser’s commitments. The rule applies regardless of the technology used to produce the visual.

Artificially flawless skin, a simulated product demonstration, a fabricated manufacturing environment or a synthetic testimonial may distort consumer perception. An “AI-generated” notice does not cure an unsupported commercial promise. Marketing teams must be able to substantiate performance claims and distinguish creative illustration from evidence of the product’s actual effect.

To learn more about this transparency obligation, we invite you to consult our previously published article: “What legal challenges arise from the use of artificial intelligence in advertising content by influencers?”

Third-party rights require a separate clearance review

Indicating that content has been generated or modified using AI does not remove the need to ensure that its use respects third-party rights. Article L. 122-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code prohibits the unauthorised reproduction, adaptation or transformation of protected works. An advertising campaign may therefore reproduce or transform a protected work without authorization, but may also infringe trademark, design right, image or voice right, or damage an individual’s reputation.

Where prompts or uploaded files contain photographs, voices, customer profiles or internal documents, the GDPR and confidentiality obligations must also be considered. The CNIL recommends governance involving legal, operational, security and data-protection teams. A closed solution, or one configured to prevent provider reuse of data, may be preferable for sensitive campaign assets.

To learn more regarding the protection of rights, we invite you to consult our previously published article: ” How can one secure or assign rights in a work created with the assistance of artificial intelligence?“.

How should compliance for AI advertising be organised?

Implement a four-stage approval process

We recommend a process proportionate to the campaign’s visibility, budget, duration and territories:

• Document the tools, prompts, source files, successive versions and human modifications to better manage the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence.
• Identify the provider, deployer, responsible advertiser and contractors involved in distribution.
• Clear rights in works, trademarks, music, voices, individuals and data used or reproduced.
• Determine before release whether the content requires technical marking, visible or audible disclosure, modification or regeneration.

Secure the entire contractual chain

Agreements with agencies, studios, influencers and technology providers should require prior notice of AI use, define approved tools, protect confidential material, require delivery of prompts and versions where appropriate, address intellectual property warranties and allocate claims management. A platform’s permission for commercial use does not guarantee that the output is free from third-party rights.

The approval file should remain available after release. Penalties for breach of the transparency requirements may reach EUR 15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover, without excluding takedown measures, misleading-advertising proceedings or compensation claims by right holders.

Conclusion

The use of AI in advertising does not create a general duty to disclose every algorithmic intervention. It does require a structured assessment of realism, apparent authenticity and the likelihood of confusion. Where content constitutes a deepfake, disclosure must be clear and immediate. In every case, the advertiser must still review the accuracy of the message, third-party rights, the data used and the commitments of its contractors.

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.

Q&A

Who is responsible for labeling an AI-generated advertisement: the advertiser, the agency or the platform?

It depends on the role of each party in the campaign. The obligation to inform the public generally falls on the party using the AI system and disseminating the relevant content. Contracts between the advertiser, agency and platform may allocate responsibilities, but they do not exempt each party from complying with the obligations applicable to it.

What happens to an advertisement created before August 2, 2026 but first released after that date?

The creation date alone does not remove the duty. Content that had not already been made available to the public before August 2, 2026 should be assessed under the rules applicable when it is released. The limited transitional arrangements mainly concern certain provider marking obligations and do not create a general exemption for campaigns prepared earlier.

Can a platform require broader AI labelling than the AI Act?

Yes. A social network, advertising platform or an advertising network may impose additional contractual requirements through its terms or advertising policies. Advertisers must comply with both applicable law and the distribution channel’s rules, or risk removal or suspension of the campaign.

Must an AI disclosure be translated for every country in which the campaign appears?

The information must be understandable to the target audience. A multilingual campaign will therefore generally require translation or local adaptation. An icon can support the message, but it may not replace clear text or an audible statement in a language understood by the audience.

How long should prompts and campaign versions be retained?

There is no single retention period for all projects. Records should be kept for at least the exploitation period, the duration of contractual warranties and a reasonable period during which a claim may arise. International or reusable campaigns will generally justify longer retention than short-lived content.

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.

Introduction

The Order simplifying the French Intellectual Property Code, dated July 8, 2026 and published in the Official Journal on July 23, 2026, completes the reform introduced by Decree No. 2026-576 of June 30, 2026. The Order entered into force on July 24, 2026 and removes several mechanisms that had become incompatible with the digitisation of procedures before the INPI.

The reform directly affects the daily practices of applicants, IP rights holders, employee inventors, companies and professional representatives through electronic notifications, restrictions on fee refunds, a new SME threshold, increased protection of residential addresses, the rectification of trademark oppositions and simplified patent procedures.

Why was an implementing order adopted after the decree?

Decree No. 2026-576 of June 30, 2026 amended 35 provisions of the French Intellectual Property Code to harmonise, simplify and modernise INPI procedures. Subject to specific transitional rules, it applies to pending proceedings from July 2, 2026.

The Order of July 8, 2026 aligns the relevant implementing instruments with this revised regulatory framework. It repeals procedures that are no longer required and updates the wording of the INPI fee schedule.

Abolition of the INPI employee-invention declaration envelope

The Order repeals the Order of August 29, 1985, which governed the use of a special double envelope filed with the INPI for the purpose of transmitting an employee-invention declaration to the employer. However, envelopes filed before the reform entered into force remain subject to the former rules.

The employee’s obligation to report an invention has not been abolished. An employee inventor must still inform the employer without delay and disclose sufficient information for the invention to be classified under the applicable statutory regime. The declaration must now be communicated directly by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or by another method capable of proving receipt.

Repeal of obsolete patent, trademark and design instruments

The Order also repeals an Order from September 19, 1979 concerning patent and utility certificate procedures, several trademark orders adopted between 1992 and 1995, and an Order from August 13, 1992 concerning registered designs. These rules had been superseded by subsequent regulatory reforms and the widespread use of online procedures.

Electronic notifications become the standard operational channel

The INPI presents the reform as completing the digitisation of industrial property notifications. An email informs the recipient that a notification is available in the recipient’s personal account on the INPI e-procedures portal. Where no email address is available, a notice may be published in the French Official Bulletin of Industrial Property.

The alert email should not be confused with the procedural document itself. Businesses should monitor the portal regularly, update correspondence details in each relevant application and establish continuity arrangements during holidays, employee absences and staff changes.

Fee refunds become exceptional

The Decree removes several grounds for reimbursement, including certain cases involving inadmissible applications, the termination of patent limitation proceedings, the absence of a required translation for the conversion of a European patent application and the non-transmission of an international application.

The case-law research report fee may still be refunded where preparation of the report has not begun. These rules apply to requests submitted from July 2, 2026.

Applicants should consequently verify admissibility, translations, supporting documents and procedural strategy before paying a fee.

The SME threshold is reduced from 1,000 to 250 employees

For French patent applications filed from July 2, 2026, the workforce threshold for claiming the reduced fee regime is now 250 employees. The applicant must declare its relevant category, SME or non-profit organization, at the filing date. The supporting certificate previously required no longer needs to be attached.

Full residential addresses are no longer published

Where an applicant or rights holder is a natural person, published identifying information is now limited to the person’s surname, given names, municipality and country of residence. The new rules apply to publications concerning patents, trademarks and registered designs.

This measure reflects the data-minimisation principle, under which personal data should be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the stated purpose.

Trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings

The regulatory decision-making period has been extended from three to four months in trademark opposition and administrative cancellation proceedings. The change also applies to proceedings pending on July 2, 2026.

Certain deficiencies affecting a trademark opposition may now be corrected by completing missing information or submitting missing documents. This possibility does not dispense the opponent from complying with the applicable rules on standing, time limits and substantive admissibility.

Patent and utility certificate procedures

The reform introduces several additional adjustments:

• applicants no longer need to provide a copy of an earlier filing when claiming internal priority if the INPI already has access to it;
• the INPI may prepare the abstract of a patent application itself;
• proposed amendments to a patent may be considered until the end of the oral stage of opposition proceedings, provided that the adversarial principle is respected;
• third-party observations on a utility certificate must be filed within three months of publication;
• printed patent specifications are discontinued.

These changes should be incorporated into internal French patent filing and portfolio-management procedures.

What immediate measures should businesses take?

We recommend that businesses:

• verify all email addresses registered with the INPI;
• monitor their e-procedures accounts on a daily basis;
• authorise more than one person to review procedural notifications;
• revise employee-invention declaration templates;
• update opposition, invalidity and non-use revocation calendars;
• retain timestamped evidence of all material communications.

Conclusion

The Order simplifying the French Intellectual Property Code and the Decree of June 30, 2026 remove a number of formalities, but place greater responsibility on applicants to monitor notifications, confirm admissibility and anticipate procedural costs. Digitisation should therefore not be confused with a reduction in the level of legal vigilance required.

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.

Q&A

What happens if the email alerting the recipient to an INPI notification is not received?

Failure to receive the email alert should not be treated as meaning that no notification has been issued. Companies should therefore consult their e-procedures account directly and regularly, secure access to that account and establish a back-up procedure for periods when the person responsible for monitoring it is absent.

Should existing powers of attorney, correspondence details or INPI access rights be updated?

The reform warrants an audit of the contact details and access rights associated with each portfolio. In particular, companies should verify the correspondence email address, the identity of authorised users, access permissions for the portal and the arrangements for forwarding notifications between the company and its representative.

Do the new rules also apply to proceedings initiated before July 2026?

The temporal application of the reform depends on the measure concerned. Certain provisions apply immediately to pending proceedings, while others apply only to applications filed or actions initiated on or after July 2, 2026. Each case should therefore be reviewed individually.

Does restricting the publication of residential addresses make applicants completely anonymous?

No. Certain identifying information remains publicly available, including the individual’s surname, given names, municipality and country of residence. The reform limits the disclosure of the full residential address, but it does not remove the public nature of the registers or the identification of the rights holder.

Do fully digital procedures genuinely reduce the risk of missing a deadline?

Digitisation accelerates communications, but it may also create new risks, including expired access rights, outdated email addresses, filtered messages, failures in internal circulation or the absence of the person managing the matter. Procedural security therefore depends increasingly on the company’s internal organisation rather than solely on the operation of the portal.

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.