News

Introduction

Creating a trademark, whether a name and/or a logo, is often a pivotal moment in the development of a business. However, before initiating a formal filing with the French IP Office (INPI) or any comparable authority, it is essential to verify that the proposed sign is available and does not conflict with earlier rights. This is precisely the purpose of a prior art search: an essential step to anticipate legal risks, safeguard your investments, and build a sustainable trademark strategy.

What Is a trademark prior art search?

Filing a trademark grants, under trademark law, an exclusive right to use the sign for specific goods and services.

However, such registration requires that the chosen sign be distinctive and available: it must not infringe any pre-existing rights (trademarks, company names, trade names, business names, domain names, etc.).

A prior art search is therefore the preliminary verification used to identify such earlier rights before filing.

Several types of searches may be necessary:

• Exact-match search: identifies signs that are strictly identical (same spelling, same logo, same classes of goods/services) to the one you intend to file.
• Similarity search (phonetic, visual, conceptual): a deeper examination to detect signs that are close enough to trigger a likelihood of confusion. This level is particularly critical for assessing risks of opposition, invalidity, or infringement.

Thus, the absence of identical trademarks is not sufficient: similarity must also be assessed to identify potential risks.

How to conduct an effective prior art search?

Recommended tools and databases

To perform a thorough search, it is advisable to use:

• The INPI “Marques” database for French trademarks.
• The EUIPO database for EU trademarks and the WIPO database for international trademarks.
• Professional services (IP attorneys, law firms) when a similarity analysis is required.

Relying solely on a general-purpose search engine is strongly discouraged.

Legal analysis: beyond simple automated searches

A truly useful prior art search requires professional legal analysis:

• Assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic, visual or conceptual criteria, and the perception of the relevant public.
• Examination of the goods and services covered, in accordance with the principle of specialty.
• Consideration of other rights beyond trademarks: company names, trade names, domain names, business names, etc.
• Verification of the actual use of the earlier sign (reputation, age, geographical scope), which may affect the assessment of the risk.

This work demands legal expertise, making the involvement of an IP attorney or trademark attorney highly advisable.

When and by whom should the search be conducted?

• When?: Before any filing. It should be carried out as soon as the name, trade name, domain name, or logo is being conceived.
• By whom?: The applicant may perform preliminary checks, but a professional (IP attorney or specialist lawyer) is strongly recommended for a reliable, risk-based interpretation.

Legal and strategic implications of a prior art search

Securing registration and avoiding opposition or invalidation

Without a prior search, filing a trademark may lead to:

• Opposition by the holder of earlier rights after publication,
• Invalidation proceedings years after registration if the trademark is deemed too similar to an earlier sign,
• Infringement proceedings if the trademark is used commercially.

For instance, in the Huella case of May 7, 2025, the application for a trademark covering leather goods (Class 18) was refused due to the presence of an earlier trademark protected for cosmetics (Class 3). More details can be found on this case in our previously published article.

Thus, a prior art search is the first line of defence in securing the validity and long-term enforceability of your trademark.

Protecting investments and trademark reputation

Trademark development often involves substantial investments: branding, marketing, packaging, communication, digital presence, etc.

A conflict arising after launch may result in refusal of registration, forced withdrawal, or a complete rebrand, each carrying significant financial, logistical and reputational consequences.

A prior art search protects the business against these risks by providing a stable and secure framework from the outset.

Structuring a strategic trademark portfolio

Beyond a simple verification exercise, a prior art search helps to build a smart filing strategy. The applicant is advised to:

• Identify priority or defensive classes based on current or future activities,
• Adjust the sign (spelling, logo, wording) to maximise distinctiveness,
• Consider complementary filings (domain names, trade names, company names) to strengthen market presence,
• Prepare for future monitoring to detect potentially conflicting new filings.

A comprehensive search is therefore not merely a compliance measure but a genuine strategic tool for managing intangible assets.

Conclusion

A prior art search is the cornerstone of any effective trademark protection strategy. It allows businesses to anticipate legal risks (opposition, invalidity, infringement), safeguard investments, establish a strong trademark reputation, and develop a coherent trademark portfolio. Neglecting this step exposes the company to significant financial and reputational consequences that can be difficult to remedy.

We strongly encourage every entrepreneur, start-up, and established company to incorporate this process into their trademark development strategy, ideally with the support of an experienced professional.

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.

Dreyfus & Associés 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

1. Is a prior art search legally required before filing a trademark?

No. It is not a statutory requirement, but it is essential in practice because it determines whether earlier rights could block registration or restrict the use of your trademark.

2. Why is a simple Google search insufficient to verify availability?

Many earlier rights are not visible through search engines. Only official databases (INPI, EUIPO, WIPO, domain name registries) reveal registered rights, and only legal analysis can assess the likelihood of confusion.

3. Should I check only trademarks, or also domain names and company names?

A complete search should include domain names, company names, trade names and business names, as these rights can also be invoked, especially when they are well-known.

4. Does a prior art search guarantee the absence of future conflicts?

It significantly reduces the risk but cannot provide absolute certainty. New filings may still arise after the search, which is why ongoing monitoring is recommended.

5. Does a prior art search guarantee that my trademark will be registered?

No search can guarantee registration. The outcome depends on the applicant’s strategic choices, the behaviour of holders of earlier rights and subsequent filings. A combined strategy (search + filing + monitoring) provides the highest level of security.

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 protection of figurative trademarks occupies a central place in intellectual property strategies, particularly in an environment where imagery, form, and graphic codes are decisive vectors for identifying products and services. Yet the registration of such signs remains complex due to the strict requirements set by European Union law and recent case law. Companies seeking robust protection must anticipate obstacles relating to distinctiveness, graphic originality, and consumer perception.

This article outlines the key legal criteria, the risk of refusal, and practical strategies to optimize the protection of figurative trademarks.

Legal foundations of figurative trademark protection

A figurative trademark encompasses any non-verbal sign composed of graphic elements: logos, icons, stylized drawings, shapes, lines, or visual combinations. Under both French law and European Union law, such signs must be distinctive, non-descriptive, and capable of identifying the commercial origin of the goods or services.

Legislation requires that the sign be perceived immediately by the consumer as an indication of origin, and not as a simple decorative motif or ordinary shape. This requirement is set out in Article L.711-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code and Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR.

Industrial property offices consistently refuse signs considered banal, even when applicants rely on actual commercial use or marketing strategy. The logic remains constant: a trademark does not protect a graphic idea but a form that is immediately perceived as distinctive.

Distinctiveness criteria applicable to shapes and graphic elements

The central question is whether the figurative sign contains sufficiently marked characteristics to allow the consumer to memorise it without particular effort. This does not require a high level of artistic creativity, but the sign must be capable of standing apart from the common stock of shapes.

Where the graphic element approaches a simple geometric shape (circle, square, rectangle, line, pentagon), there is a high risk of refusal. Case law adds that minor variations (slight waviness, tilt, rounding) are not sufficient to compensate for a lack of distinctiveness.

For example, in a decision dated November 13, 2024 (TUE, November 13, 2024, case 426/23 Chiquita Brands v. EUIPO), the General Court of the European Union ruled that a simple yellow and blue oval was comparable to a basic geometric shape and therefore not eligible for trademark protection. This approach is particularly strict, as the offices and courts consider that these signs do not convey any identifiable commercial message.

This requirement applies irrespective of the relevant public. Even if that public has a higher level of attention, as in technological or professional sectors, case law reiterates that the degree of attention has no impact on the threshold of distinctiveness.

Key lessons from recent case law: the Rigo Trading decision

The judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 16 July 2025 (Case T-215/24, Rigo Trading SA v. EUIPO) constitutes a major development.

Facts and procedure

The Luxembourg company Rigo Trading SA designated the European Union for the international registration of a purely figurative sign representing a slightly wavy rectangle, intended to distinguish a wide range of goods.

The EUIPO examiner refused registration on the ground that the sign had no distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, considering that it amounted to a minor variation of a basic geometric shape. The Fifth Board of Appeal upheld that decision, prompting the company to bring the matter before the General Court.

Before the Court, Rigo Trading argued, in particular, that the EUIPO had incorrectly defined the relevant public and that the sign could not, in reality, be assimilated to a simple geometric figure.

Findings of the General Court

The General Court dismissed the action, confirming that the sign did not allow consumers to identify the commercial origin of the goods. It emphasised that the level of attention of the consumer, whether average or specialised, has no impact on the assessment of distinctiveness.

The Court found that:

• The contested sign is very close to a simple geometric figure
• The slight waviness is not sufficient to constitute a substantial variation
• The absence of additional graphic elements (combination, complexity, stylisation) prevents the sign from meeting the minimum threshold required
• The simplicity of the sign prevents immediate memorisation by the public

The ruling reinforces a long-established trend: overly simple or minimalist signs (rectangles, lines, stylised circles, regular hexagons) fail to be registered unless distinctiveness acquired through use is proven.

An interesting point: the same sign had been accepted by the Benelux Office, highlighting divergences between European offices. However, the Court confirmed that EU law prevails for any registration targeting the European Union.

Best practices for securing a figurative trademark

To maximise the chances of registration, it is advisable to:

• Integrate distinctive graphic elements: visual rhythm, asymmetry, original contours
• Avoid simple or geometric shapes, especially when the aim is to protect packaging or motifs
• Reinforce the stylisation of the logo to increase memorability
• Demonstrate intensive use of the sign through structured marketing evidence when necessary
• Systematically analyse recent EUIPO refusals to adjust the graphic strategy

Conclusion

The protection of figurative trademarks requires both a strategic and technical approach. Ensuring strong figurative trademark protection involves more than aesthetic analysis: it relies on a precise understanding of distinctiveness as assessed by trademark offices. Companies must therefore anticipate obstacles linked to graphic simplicity, strengthen stylisation, and closely monitor recent case law.

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.

Dreyfus & Associés 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

1. How can distinctiveness acquired through use be proven?

By providing evidence demonstrating that the public associates the sign with your company: sales data, advertising campaigns, surveys, press coverage, market share, or any proof of effective recognition.

2. Can a figurative trademark protect packaging?

Yes, provided the packaging has sufficiently original visual features to be perceived as an indicator of origin rather than a decorative or functional element.

3. Do European offices assess distinctiveness in the same way?

No. Although EU law sets a common framework, assessments differ between national offices. The EUIPO generally applies a stricter approach, particularly regarding simple shapes.

4. How can a logo that is too simple be strengthened before filing?

By adding distinctive graphic elements: asymmetry, combinations of shapes, original lines, stylistic effects, or integrating a verbal element to distance the sign from basic geometry.

5. How can a refusal before the EUIPO be avoided?

By anticipating the distinctiveness assessment, avoiding minimalist signs, preparing an evidence-of-use strategy if needed, and conducting a legal evaluation of the sign prior to filing. Reinforcing stylisation greatly increases the chances of registration.

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

In an environment where creative content circulates faster than ever, determining the owner of a copyright-protected work remains a key legal issue for businesses, creators, and all innovation stakeholders. French law follows a particularly protective regime, grounded on the primacy of the author, strict requirements for copyright assignments, and narrowly framed exceptions, especially for employees, external service providers, collaborative works, and software.

Please find bellow the essential rules governing copyright ownership and transfer in France, together with best contractual practices to ensure secure exploitation of a work.

Who is the author and initial rights holder of a work?

Fundamental principle: the author is always the natural person who created the work

The French Intellectual Property Code (“IPC”) is unequivocal: the author is the creator of the work, regardless of status or function. The author holds:

• Moral rights, perpetual, inalienable, and imprescriptible (Art. L121-1 IPC);
• Economic rights, transferable and exploitable under contract (Art. L122-1 et seq. IPC).

Presumption of authorship: the person whose name appears on the work

When a work is disclosed under a particular name, that person is presumed to be the author, unless proven otherwise. This presumption is central in disputes relating to the origin of a creation.

Orphan works: a specific regime

If no author can be identified, the work is considered an orphan work, and it remains protected. Its use is strictly limited to cultural, educational or research purposes, excluding commercial exploitation.

Works created by employees, contractors, or public officials: who owns the rights?

Employees: no “work for hire” doctrine under French law

Contrary to common-law systems, French law does not recognise automatic transfers of copyright to employers.

Even when created within the scope of employment, the employee remains:

• The author, and
• The initial owner of economic rights.

To exploit the work, the employer must obtain a written copyright assignment, compliant with Articles L131-1 et seq. IPC.

The software exception

Software is subject to a major exception under article L113-9 IPC: the employer automatically acquires economic rights when the software is created:

• In the course of the employee’s duties, or
• According to the employer’s instructions.

This rule strongly protects technology companies.

Public officials: a regime governed by the intellectual property code

Public officials are subject to a specific copyright regime, set out in Articles L131-3-1 and L111-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code. As a general rule, the public official remains the author and the initial rights holder, but the administration may exploit works created in the performance of the official’s duties or in accordance with instructions received, to the extent necessary for the fulfilment of the public service mission. Any exploitation exceeding this purpose requires the express authorisation of the author, together with appropriate remuneration.

Teachers-researchers, however, constitute a notable exception: owing to their academic freedom, they retain full control over the exploitation of their works, even when created in the course of their duties. This framework seeks to balance the protection owed to the author with the operational needs of the public service.

Independent Contractors: Assignment Required

The rule is clear: a contractor remains the author and owner of the work unless a written assignment is executed in favour of the commissioning party.

Without such an assignment, the work cannot legally be exploited, even if fully paid for.

Works with multiple authors: collaboration, derivative works and collective works

Collaborative works: joint ownership

A work created by several individuals is a collaborative work under Articles L113-2 (para. 1) and L113-3 IPC.

Co-authors jointly own the rights, and any exploitation requires their mutual consent.

Derivative works: authorisation required

When a work derives from a pre-existing work (adaptation, transformation, remix of a protected work), the author of the derivative work must obtain the right holder’s authorization, pursuant to article L113-4 IPC, which governs composite works.

Collective works: a specific ownership regime

Article L113-2 (para. 3) IPC defines a collective work as a creation developed at the initiative of a natural or legal person who publishes and discloses it under their name and assumes editorial responsibility, with the individual contributions merged into an inseparable whole.

This regime frequently applies to:

• Press publications,
• Content created by creative agencies,
• Websites and digital platforms,
• Editorial and institutional materials.

A work qualifies as collective when three cumulative criteria are met:

1. A decisive initiative and overall control by the commissioning entity, exercising genuine editorial oversight;
2. Integration of individual contributions into a unified whole, with no separable rights;
3. Disclosure under the commissioning entity’s name, appearing as the sole project owner.

Where these conditions are fulfilled, the legal entity is the original owner of the economic rights, eliminating the need to obtain individual assignments from contributors.

Assignment and licensing: how can copyright be transferred or exploited?

Copyright assignment: strict formal requirements

A valid assignment must:

• Be in writing;
• Specify each transferred right (reproduction, representation, adaptation, etc.);
• Detail the territory, duration, and media;
• Include proportional or fixed remuneration compliant with the ipc.

General formulas such as “all rights assigned” are invalid.

Licences: a flexible alternative

A licence authorises use without transferring ownership. It must be:

• Limited in duration (perpetual licences are void),
• Clear, with ambiguities interpreted in favour of the author.

Certain licences are statutory (library lending, private copying, educational uses) and involve mandatory remuneration.

No registration requirement

France requires no administrative formalities to recognise assignments or licences.
However, maintaining records is strongly recommended for evidentiary purposes.

Duration of protection and contractual safeguards

Standard duration: 70 years post mortem

Economic rights expire 70 years after the author’s death.

For collective, anonymous, or pseudonymous works, protection lasts 70 years from 1 January following the year of publication (Art. L123-3 IPC).

Best contractual practices

We systematically recommend:

• Signing contracts before delivery of the work;
• Drafting by distinct rights (reproduction, adaptation, etc.);
• Precise identification of the work and all versions;
• Verifying the chain of title (employees, contractors, subcontractors);
• Including warranties against eviction and infringement.

A frequent example: a company commissioning a website without an assignment is legally unable to modify its design or entrust maintenance to a third party.

Conclusion

Determining the ownership of a copyright-protected work in France requires balancing author protection, contractual precision, and narrowly framed legal exceptions. Legal certainty depends on a deep understanding of IPC mechanisms and carefully drafted contracts.

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.

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Can an author assign copyright before the work is even created?
Yes, but only under strict conditions. French case law prohibits broad assignments of future works unless the scope or type of works is sufficiently defined. Production agreements (video games, audiovisual works, commissioned creations) often rely on this framework.

2. How can authorship or prior creation be proved in case of a dispute?
Evidence may include Soleau envelopes (INPI), blockchain timestamps, bailiff reports, digital archives, dated project files, or emails. No formalities are required, but reliable proof of date is essential.

3. Can an employer prevent an employee from reusing a work created during employment?
Yes, if the employee has assigned the economic rights under the IPC. Without a written assignment, the employer has no exploitation rights.

4. Who owns the rights in a work published under a pseudonym?
The person identified as author upon disclosure benefits from a presumption of authorship.

5. Can a licence be granted without a duration limit?
No. Perpetual licences are void under French law.

6. Can AI be considered an author?
No. Only a human being can be recognised as an author under the IPC.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or constitute legal advice

Introduction

On May 21, 2025, the General Court of the European Union  upheld the partial revocation of the EU trademark Airbnb for “advertising” services in class 35.

This decision highlights an essential distinction: promoting one’s own services does not constitute advertising within the meaning of trademark law.

The case illustrates the importance of genuine and distinctive use of registered trademarks and encourages proprietors to adapt their filing strategies to the actual nature of their business activities.

The partial revocation request concerning the Airbnb trademark

Airbnb, Inc., which owns a European Union trademark since 2013 and which covers advertising services in class 35, was subject to a revocation request filed in 2020 by the Australian company Airtasker Pty Ltd on the grounds of lack of genuine use within the European Union.

The EUIPO Cancellation Division partially upheld the request for revocation.

Following an appeal filed by Airbnb, the EUIPO Board of Appeal confirmed the revocation for class 35, finding that the evidence provided (promotional materials, marketing campaigns, website excerpts) related exclusively to the company’s internal activities and not to the provision of advertising services to third parties.

Airbnb then appealed to the General Court of the European Union, challenging the interpretation that advertising must necessarily be understood as a service provided to third parties.

The position of the General Court of the European Union

The General Court dismissed Airbnb’s appeal and upheld the partial revocation of the trademark for advertising services.

Based on established case law, the Court recalls that advertising services are intended to assist other companies in promoting their goods or services, or to strengthen their competitive position on the market through commercial communication.

Thus, advertising carried out solely for one’s own internal purposes, even if extensive and widely disseminated, cannot be regarded as an advertising service provided to third parties, which is the type of service covered by Class 35 under the Nice Classification.

The evidence of use submitted by Airbnb demonstrated only the promotion of its own accommodation offers and commercial activities, without establishing any advertising services carried out on behalf of other companies or individuals.

The Court further specified that promoting the accommodation offered by hosts on the platform does not constitute an independent advertising activity.

Such promotion is primarily intended to increase the visibility and profitability of the platform itself, rather than to provide a distinct advertising service.

The use of the Airbnb trademark in this context cannot therefore be regarded as genuine use for advertising services.

Key takeaways for trademark owners

This decision reiterates a fundamental rule of trademark law: for use to qualify as genuine, it must correspond to the precise nature of the services designated.

• Avoid unnecessarily overprotecting a trademark

Filing a mark in classes that have no direct connection with the owner’s actual business activities, as was the case here with Class 35 for advertising services, exposes the registration to medium-term risks of revocation

• Promoting one’s own products does not constitute an advertising service

A company’s internal or self-focused communication, even on a large scale, is not sufficient to demonstrate genuine use for advertising services. Only services rendered to third parties (e.g., agencies, consultants, platforms providing visibility to others) fall within this category.

• The importance of a coherent filing strategy

Before filing, it is essential to identify accurately the relevant classes in light of the proprietor’s real economic activities. For digital businesses in particular, distinguishing between core activities and ancillary services is crucial.

Conclusion

In its judgment of May 21, 2025 (Case T-1032/23, Airbnb, Inc. v. EUIPO), the General Court of the European Union clearly reiterates that genuine use of a trademark requires exploitation consistent with the services for which it has been registered.

Trademark owners must therefore ensure that their filings accurately reflect the nature of their services, otherwise, they risk partial or even total revocation of their rights.

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.

Dreyfus & Associés 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

1. What types of services are covered under Class 35?

Class 35 of the Nice Classification covers advertising, business management, and retail services, among others.

2. Why is it risky to register a trademark in classes that do not correspond to the owner’s actual business activities ?

Overly broad filings increase the risk of revocation: if the proprietor cannot demonstrate genuine use in a given class, their rights may be partially or fully cancelled. Moreover, an incoherent filing strategy can trigger unnecessary disputes and raise the overall cost of maintaining the trademark portfolio.

3. Can an overly narrow trademark filing also create issues?

Yes. An excessively limited specification may prevent a business from achieving adequate protection as its activities evolve. A trademark should be protected in a proportionate manner: if the filing is too broad, it risks revocation; if too narrow, it may fail to shield the owner from imitators

4. How can a business anticipate and mitigate the risk of revocation within its trademark portfolio?

By implementing regular monitoring of actual use, maintaining dated evidence, conducting internal audits every two to three years, and adjusting filings when business activities evolve. This proactive approach helps prevent future challenges.

5. What types of evidence are generally accepted to prove genuine use of a trademark within the European Union?

The evidence must demonstrate real, public, outward-facing, and commercial use of the mark for the goods or services for which it is registered. This may include invoices, contracts, advertisements directed at the public, sales evidence, marketing materials, audience metrics, or commercial partnerships. Purely internal documents are insufficient.

Introduction

The administrative cancellation procedure has been available before the INPI since April 1, 2020, thanks to the PACTE Law of May 22, 2019. After five years, this procedure has proven highly successful. Bad faith in the filing of a trademark is one of the most frequently invoked absolute grounds for cancellation before the INPI. The rise of parasitic strategies, increased competitive tensions, and the consolidated case law from the CJEU have prompted companies to examine what this concept actually entails.

In this article, we provide a comprehensive guide to understanding and identifying bad faith in a trademark application, in order to determine under which conditions a nullity action can be brought before the INPI.

Understanding the concept of bad faith in trademark law

Legal definition and foundations

Article L.711-2 11° of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that a trademark filed in bad faith cannot be validly registered. If it is nevertheless registered, it may be declared null.
More specifically, the prohibition of bad faith targets any filing made with an intention contrary to honest commercial practices, whether to harm a competitor, unduly monopolize a sign, or divert the essential function of indicating origin.

Presumption of good faith and burden of proof

Under Article 2274 of the French Civil Code, good faith is always presumed. The burden of proof lies with the claimant seeking nullity, who must provide relevant and consistent evidence. This evidence must be dated, contextualized, and allow assessment of the applicant’s intention at the time of filing.

Identifying bad faith in a trademark application

Fraudulent behaviors targeting a specific third party

This category covers situations in which the applicant knew of prior use and filed with the intention of harming the third party’s interests, for example:

• Filing a sign used by a former business partner, employee, or distributor

In the Secretum decision of April 15, 2025 (NL24-0093), a commercial partnership existed between the claimant and the owner of the contested trademark. The claimant had created a wine trademark specifically for the owner, with a contract explicitly stating that the trademark remained the claimant’s property. Despite this clause, the owner filed an identical trademark, reproducing both the term and the calligraphy.

• Intent to improperly benefit from the reputation of the sign

For example, in a July 3, 2023 decision (NL23-000) regarding the trademark “” (or “BANDE DE FILS DE SNAP”) the INPI considered that the trademark exploited the notoriety of the signs “SNAPCHAT” and “”. The contested trademark was filed with the intent to create an association in the public’s mind and profit from the reputation and success of the existing application.

• Coincidence of the end of a contractual relationship and a targeted filing

In the HYGROTOP decision of February 23, 2022 (NL21-0167), the claimant had ended commercial relations with the company distributing and installing its products. On the same day, the managing director of the distributing company filed the claimant’s name as a trademark.

Filings diverting the essential function of a trademark

Some fraudulent filings do not target a specific third party but aim to obtain an unjustified monopoly, for example:

• Filing to prevent a revocation action

In the Pomone decision of March 27, 2025 (NL23-0276), the claimant requested that the owner of preexisting POMONE marks (filed in 2017 and registered for more than five years) provide proofs of use, according to the rules controlling use of older marks. Less than three weeks after this request, the owner filed the contested trademark to strengthen its position in negotiations regarding the purchase of the marks.

• Filing a work in the public domain

In the Pompon decision of September 13, 2024 (NL23-0183), the trademark «POMPON», filed by a museum shop operator, was challenged by Dixit Arte SAS. The claimant argued that the registration aimed to monopolize the name «Pompon», associated with sculptor François Pompon, whose works are in the public domain.

For more information on this matter, please refer to our previously published article.

Factual indicators considered by the INPI

The assessment is global and depends on multiple factors, such as:

Chronology of events (often decisive), e.g., in Drag Race France, April 26, 2023 (NL22-0205), the contested trademark was filed simultaneously with the announcement of the show’s arrival in France by the claimant.

Attempts to monetize the filing, e.g., in Google, August 30, 2021 (NL21-0055), the owner of the contested marks offered to modify the project in exchange for compensation, indicating a “wait for a monetary proposal.”

Other factors include:

• Prior relations between the parties;
• Notoriety of the prior sign;
• A clearly parasitic strategy of multiple filings.

Conversely, the INPI rejects bad faith when a filing aims to strengthen preexisting rights or involves a real and legitimate exploitation project.

Bad faith as a procedural tool before the INPI: the example of forfeiture through acquiescence

Article L.716-2-8 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that the holder of an earlier right who tolerated the use of a later-registered trademark for five consecutive years cannot request nullity of that later trademark. This is known as forfeiture through acquiescence.

However, the article makes an exception: nullity is still possible if the registration was filed in bad faith. This serves as a powerful lever when the prior right holder discovers an abusive filing late.

In the recent LOCPLUS decision of December 14, 2023 (NL21-0255), the issue was examined, showing the strictness required to overturn forfeiture. In that case, although bad faith was invoked to bypass forfeiture, the argument was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

Conclusion

Cancellation of a trademark for bad faith in INPI proceedings is a decisive legal mechanism to combat parasitic strategies. Rigorous assessment of bad faith strengthens the legal certainty for economic actors.

In an environment of increasing trademark conflicts, understanding this absolute ground for cancellation is essential to protect intangible assets and anticipate litigation risks.

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.

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Can the INPI raise bad faith ex officio during examination of a trademark application
No. The INPI cannot raise bad faith on its own; it can only be invoked by a third party in a nullity action.

2. Is likelihood of confusion required to prove bad faith?
No. Bad faith sanctions a fraudulent intention, independent of confusion analysis.

3. Can a company file a name it plans to commercialize later?
Yes, provided there is a genuine and fair intention to use it, not as part of a fraudulent strategy to block a competitor.

4. Can multiple filings indicate bad faith?
Yes, if they reveal a systematic strategy to capture signs used by third parties.

5. Can bad faith exist without targeting a third party?
Yes, for example, when the filing diverts the essential function of a trademark.

This publication provides general guidance and highlights key issues. It is not intended for specific cases nor to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The publication by the INPI of its analysis of the first five years of cancellation and revocation procedures trademarks an important step in the evolution of trademark litigation in France. For the first time, the Office provides a comprehensive and documented overview of how these procedures, introduced by the Ordinance of November 13, 2019, and accessible since April 2020, actually work.

This report, published in the INPI’s Journal du droit, highlights how these administrative mechanisms have become a key tool in trade mark protection and litigation strategies. It outlines the profile of users, the legal grounds most frequently invoked, and the way the INPI applies the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code.

An administrative procedure that has become essential

Since their entry into force on April 1, 2020, applications for cancellation and revocation, provided for in Articles L. 714-3 and L. 714-5 of the Intellectual Property Code, have significantly transformed trademark litigation.

They offer several advantages:

• direct access, without going through a court;
• controlled costs, limiting the financial uncertainties of legal proceedings;
• decisions accessible in the INPI’s official legal database.
• a clear procedural framework, allowing for better anticipation.

The first decision issued in November 2020 confirmed the INPI’s ability to handle disputes previously reserved for specialized courts. Since then, companies, particularly SMEs, have actively used these procedures to protect their trademarks or challenge those of competitors.

A volume of decisions that is reshaping the landscape

In five years, the INPI has received approximately 2,200 applications and issued more than 1,800 decisions, a stable volume demonstrating widespread adoption by businesses and practitioners.

Breakdown of applications:

• 60% cancellation actions;
• 40% revocation actions.

These figures show two main uses:

• challenging the validity of a trademark upon filing
• sanctioning the absence of genuine use.

The analysis also highlights the strong involvement of SMEs and micro-enterprises, which represent more than one-third of applicants and defendants. The mechanism therefore achieves the accessibility objective set by the legislator.

The presence of a lawyer or patent attorney in over 90% of cases confirms that, despite its accessibility, the procedure remains legally demanding.

The legal grounds most commonly invoked the INPI

Relative grounds dominate cancellation actions :

Nearly 70% of cancellation requests are based on prior rights (Articles L. 711-3 et seq. of the CPI).

The INPI regularly recognizes the similarity or likelihood of confusion between signs, which explains the high success rate of this type of action.

Absolute grounds remain decisive :

Approximately 20% of actions invoke absolute grounds such as:

• lack of distinctiveness,
• descriptive character,
• violation of public policy,
• bad faith at the time of filing.

Bad faith, which was previously mainly examined by the courts, now plays an essential role before the INPI. It is invoked in more than 20% of cases and upheld in a significant proportion of them.

Revocation : lack of use as the main argument :

Lack of genuine use remains the main basis for revocation proceedings. The INPI notes that lack of commercial exploitation continues to be the easiest objective ground to document. Around 30 decisions also dealt with the degeneration or misleading nature of trademarks, which are rarer but important situations for certain sectors.

Duration, effectiveness, and observed trends

The average duration of proceedings is 8.5 months, which can extend to 17 months in the event of a hearing.

Nearly 30% of proceedings are closed without a decision on the merits (withdrawal, regularization, amicable agreement), which demonstrates the strategic use of proceedings as a bargaining chip.

Success rates are high:

• 85% of actions based on prior rights are successful in whole or in part;
• 74% of revocation actions are fully justified;
• More than 1,000 trademarks have been canceled or revoked since 2020.

Decisions often include an order to pay costs, with an average amount of €680, reinforcing the need for a solid strategy before initiating proceedings.

Practical issues for trademark owners

The publication of the analysis highlights several essential reflexes:

• regularly check the strength of registered trademarks;
• systematically keep evidence of use, which is essential in the event of a dispute;
• monitor competing filings to quickly detect conflicts using the tools provided by the INPI;
• factor the risk of cancellation into naming and branding decisions;
• prepare precise, documented, and structured arguments to maximize the chances of success.

To support these efforts, companies can rely on several useful resources:

• Journal de droit (analysis of decisions), INPI
• Légifrance for the applicable legal framework,
• The CNIL when evidence is based on online or time-stamped data.

Conclusion

The analysis published by the INPI confirms the key role played by cancellation and revocation proceedings in protecting trademarks in France. Their effectiveness, the diversity of the parties that use them, and their high success rate now make them an essential tool. For companies, the challenge is to adopt an active, proactive, and documented approach to managing their intellectual property in order to secure their intangible assets in the long term.

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.

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. What is the main benefit of the administrative procedure?

A quick, accessible, and effective resolution of trademark disputes.

2. What are the most effective grounds for cancellation?

Relative grounds based on prior rights.

3. How can genuine use of a trademark be proven?

With dated evidence: invoices, advertisements, sales statistics, web archives.

4. Can the INPI refuse to rule?

Yes, particularly in the event of a pre-existing legal dispute concerning the same facts.

5. Are actions for bad faith effective?

They are upheld in approximately half of the cases in which they are brought.

Introduction

The long-awaited Next Round of ICANN’s new gTLD Program is finally on the horizon.
Set to open in April 2026, this new application window will reshape how trademark owners, communities, and innovators engage with the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS).

The next round of ICANN’s new GTLD program follows the landmark 2012 round, which introduced over 1,200 new top-level domains (.app, .shop, .paris, .集团, etc.). Since then, the Internet ecosystem has evolved dramatically, reflecting broader technological, linguistic, and regulatory shifts.

ICANN’s community, through the GNSO Subsequent Procedures Working Group, has redefined the policy framework to increase diversity, inclusivity, and competition within the DNS. The Next Round aims to create a more accessible and multilingual Internet, encouraging participation from under-served regions and new industry sectors.

For trademark owners, the upcoming round is not merely a technical event, it is a strategic turning point!

The 2026 timeline: milestones and implementation path

ICANN has confirmed a tentative 12–15-weeks application window beginning in April 2026, with preparatory programs already in motion:

• Applicant Support Program (ASP): open since November 2024, closing November 19, 2025 (extended to December 19, 2025 to submit a completed application).
• Registry Service Provider (RSP) Evaluation Program : pre-evaluation window closed since May 20, 2025.
• Applicant Guidebook (AGB): to be finalized by December 2025, establishing the definitive rules and criteria for applicants.

These steps are part of ICANN’s phased approach covering policy implementation, program design, infrastructure development, and operationalization, the four pillars identified in its official status report.

Key outcomes from ICAAN 84 in Dublin

The ICANN 84 meeting in Dublin served as a decisive moment for consultation.
Multiple sessions focused on governments’ readiness, trademark engagement, and the technical ecosystem’s preparedness.

Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) engagement

During its plenary and capacity-building sessions, the GAC emphasized its oversight role, especially the Early Warnings mechanism, allowing governments to flag potentially problematic strings or applicants on public-interest grounds. A new “GAC Readiness Pathway” was launched, including webinars, e-learning modules, and outreach to national governments scheduled for late 2025.

Governments also raised recurring concerns regarding geographic TLDs (geoTLDs), IDN variants, and fair access to applicant support program, issues that will shape the policy environment for 2026.

Geographic and trademark registries

The GeoTLD Group highlighted the importance of genuine local community engagement and governmental non-objection letters, stressing transparency in governance for place-based TLDs.

In parallel, the Brand Registry Group (BRG) discussed strategies relating to .brand TLDs, emphasizing the need for preparation as early as the second quarter of 2026, including provider selection, contractual compliance, and post-delegation planning. For companies, this requires close coordination between domain-name strategy, marketing, cybersecurity, and legal teams ahead of the opening of the application window.

Core challenges for applicants

1. Governmental involvement and Early Warnings

Applicants must anticipate governmental scrutiny early in the process. GAC Early Warnings can significantly affect evaluations or even trigger objections.

Recommendation: Monitor applied-for strings, maintain dialogue with relevant authorities, and integrate public policy considerations into your application strategy.

2. Applicant Support Program (ASP)

The ASP aims to reduce fees by up to 75–85% for qualified applicants from under-served regions. However, governments and civil-society groups stress that outreach remains insufficient.
Applicants should assess eligibility criteria, potential benefits, and strategic trade-offs between ASP participation and standard applications.

3. Contention sets and auctions

When multiple applicants seek the same string, contention resolution becomes critical. ICANN has not yet confirmed whether auctions, controversial in 2012, will remain the default.

Trademark owners should prepare for potential competition, alliances, or pre-emptive applications to mitigate disputes.

4. Technical and operational readiness

The RSP Evaluation Program transfers part of the technical due diligence outside the applicant phase. While this simplifies evaluation, it also requires early engagement with RSP partners to ensure compliance, stability, and security.

Selecting a technically competent RSP is now a precondition for application success.

5. Fees and cost management

The application evaluation fee is estimated around USD 227,000 per TLD, excluding legal, technical, and operational costs.

Applicants should prepare comprehensive budgets, anticipate cost recovery mechanisms, and align internal governance with registry obligations.

6. IDNs, variants, and multilingual opportunities

The Next Round will support 26 scripts under the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR).
This represents a major opportunity for global trademarks seeking to localize their digital presence. However, applicants must address string similarity risks, translation accuracy, and local regulatory nuances.

7. Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)

All new registries must agree to PICs/RVCs, defining commitments related to consumer protection, transparency, and responsible operation. These are legally binding under the Registry Agreement.
Trademark owners must prepare governance and compliance frameworks to support these obligations.

Strategic implications for trademark owners

For trademark owners

Applying for a .brand TLD (also called a dotBrand) represents one of the most strategic evolutions in corporate digital identity since the first gTLD round in 2012. A dotBrand allows a company to operate its own exclusive, secure domain space under its direct control.

This model goes far beyond traditional defensive registrations or marketing convenience. It provides unprecedented autonomy in managing domain names, strengthens consumer trust, and supports digital transformation objectives across business units.

1. Brand control and consumer trust

Owning a .brand enables the creation of a trusted digital ecosystem, where every domain ending in the company’s TLD is verified and controlled by the rights holder.
This eliminates risks of phishing, counterfeiting, and typosquatting within the namespace, ensuring users can safely navigate to authentic websites such as shop.brand, careers.brand, or support.brand.

From a reputational standpoint, the .brand domain reinforces brand integrity and customer’s trust, particularly for regulated sectors like financeand health

2. Strategic marketing and innovation potential

A .brand opens new opportunities for innovation in communication and marketing.
Companies can structure personalized campaigns (e.g. summer.brand), or segment offerings (pro.brand, luxury.brand) with full consistency. This fosters omnichannel continuity, as the brand controls the entire domain architecture.

Moreover, using a .brand TLD signals technological leadership and enhances SEO performance by centralizing traffic under one authoritative namespace, improving both discoverability and data security.

3. Operational autonomy and long-term efficiency

Operating a private TLD brings technical independence from third-party registrars and external platforms. It allows companies to define their own registration policies, DNS management, and security standards (DNSSEC, SPF, DMARC, etc.).

While initial costs are higher than traditional domain portfolios, maintaining a .brand over time can be more economical and efficient, particularly for organizations managing hundreds of domain names. The consolidation of assets into one controlled namespace reduces administrative complexity and renewal expenses.

4. Challenges and responsibilities

However, a .brand also comes with governance and compliance obligations.
Brands must appoint a Registry Service Provider (RSP) meeting ICANN’s technical criteria and assume ongoing reporting duties under the Registry Agreement. Internal teams (legal, IT, marketing) must collaborate closely to ensure compliance with Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).

It is crucial to prepare internal procedures for policy management, data protection, and incident response within the .brand environment.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our focus article on .brands.

Conclusion

The Next gTLD Round is both an opportunity and a challenge.
ICANN’s roadmap is becoming clearer, but success will depend on early strategic preparation, stakeholder engagement, and a sound understanding of both policy and technical frameworks.

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.

Dreyfus & Associés 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

1. What is a gTLD?

A gTLD (generic Top-Level Domain) is a generic domain name extension appearing at the end of an Internet address, such as .com, .org, .shop, or .paris. gTLDs serve to structure the Domain Name System (DNS) and provide new opportunities for communication, visibility, and digital positioning for businesses, institutions, and communities.

2. What is the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)?

The Applicant Guidebook (AGB) is the official ICANN document setting out the rules, procedures, and requirements applicable to applicants seeking to operate a new gTLD. It defines the evaluation criteria, objection and dispute resolution mechanisms, and the technical, financial, and contractual obligations applicable to prospective registry operators.

3. What are the Public Interest Commitments (PICs)?

The Public Interest Commitments (PICs) are contractual obligations ensuring that registry operations serve the public interest, protect consumers, and prevent abuse.

4. How are domain names in non-Latin scripts handled?

Domain names aren’t limited to the Latin alphabet. In the next application round, it will be possible to register domain names in 26 different writing systems, including Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, and Cyrillic.

To ensure these domain names work properly worldwide, ICANN uses a set of technical rules called the “Root Zone Label Generation Rules” (RZ-LGR). In short, this system makes it possible for people to use the Internet in their own language and writing system, while ensuring that domain names remain safe, clear, and universally functional.

5. Do trademark owners need government approval to apply for new gTLDs?

Only geographic extensions (geoTLDs), such as .paris or .london, require the support, authorisation or formal non-objection of a government or competent public authority.

6. How should trademark owners prepare for the 2026 ICANN application window?

To make the most of the upcoming round, trademark owners should begin preparing now by taking a structured, strategic approach. Preparation involves:

• Conducting feasibility and ROI assessments to determine whether adopting a .brand TLD aligns with the company’s long-term digital and marketing goals.
• Mapping potential use cases and establishing naming conventions to ensure consistent deployment across business units.
• Engaging early with qualified Registry Service Providers (RSPs) to confirm technical readiness and compliance capacity.
• Budgeting for application, setup, and annual registry operations, anticipating both one-time and recurring costs.
• Reviewing internal compliance frameworks to ensure alignment with ICANN’s upcoming 2025 policy updates and Public Interest Commitments (PICs).

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.