Every successful IP dispute starts with a clear-eyed strategic assessment. Before filing a lawsuit, sending a cease and desist or accepting a settlement, you need an honest read of the strength of your rights, the financial exposure, the procedural calendar and the probability of success. Dreyfus & Associés delivers that read for international rights holders confronting infringement, opposition, invalidity or unfair competition issues in France and the European Union.
Reviewed by Nathalie Dreyfus, European Trademark and Patent Attorney. Last updated: June 2026.
Costs and outcomes diverge dramatically between cases that were strategically scoped from day one and cases that drifted into litigation. Three structural reasons explain why early strategic counsel pays for itself.
Procedural windows are short. Many remedies in French and EU IP law are subject to strict time limits: 30 days to oppose a French or EU trademark application (after publication), 2 months to appeal an INPI decision, 5-year limitation on most IP infringement actions. Missing a window can foreclose a defence.
Settlement leverage peaks before trial. A well-prepared cease and desist, backed by credible litigation readiness, settles many disputes in weeks rather than years. Sending a weak letter or a strong one too late can destroy negotiation leverage.
Evidence is collected, not retrieved. French law rewards rights holders who plan their proof: trademark use records, sales data, customer testimonies, technical evidence, online captures. A saisie-contrefaçon authorisation depends on the strength of the application file.
Article L.716-4-2 of the French IP Code (trademarks), Article L.615-8 (patents) and similar provisions apply a five-year statute of limitations starting from the day the right holder knew or should have known of the infringement.
Source: French Intellectual Property Code.
Once a trademark application is published, third parties have three months at EUIPO and two months at INPI to oppose it. Missing this window forces a more costly invalidity action after registration.
Source: EUTMR Article 46 and Article L.712-4 CPI.
French courts award damages taking into account the right holder’s losses, moral harm and the unfair profits made by the infringer. The provision applies across all IP rights.
Source: Article L.331-1-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code.
Unfair competition and parasitism actions are grounded in general tort liability under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, with a substantial body of case law shaping the standard of fault and damage.
Source: Article 1240 of the French Civil Code.
Inventory of your registered and unregistered rights in France and the EU, recent assignments and licences, prior art, registered domain names, social handles. Cross-check with the alleged infringement to identify the strongest and most exposed assets.
Evaluation of validity (distinctiveness, novelty, inventive step, originality), scope of protection, infringer’s potential defences (prior use, non-use, exhaustion, freedom of expression). Probability of success scored on each legal claim.
Quantification of expected damages, customs revenue at risk, online conversion impact, brand reputation. Comparison with estimated litigation budget and timeline. Settlement window definition.
Mapping of options from doing nothing to full criminal complaint, including cease and desist, mediation, administrative action at INPI or EUIPO, saisie-contrefaçon, civil suit before the JIPC, customs detention, UPC.
Defined sequence, deadlines, internal and external stakeholders, decision points. Coordination with foreign counsel for parallel actions, with tax and competition counsel where relevant, with PR if reputation is at stake.
A significant majority of French IP disputes end with a settlement before a final judgment. Choosing between negotiation, mediation and trial depends on six factors: strength of the rights, leverage of evidence, urgency, financial stakes, ongoing business relationship and reputational impact. We help you weigh each factor, often combining tracks: a cease and desist letter while preparing a saisie-contrefaçon, a settlement proposal while filing a lawsuit, a mediation track in parallel with administrative oppositions.
Full IP portfolio and exposure review before any contentious action.
Reasoned opinion on validity, infringement, damages and procedural risks.
Drafting of settlement proposals, mediation representation, structured negotiation.
Phased budget, milestones, decision gates, financial scenario planning.
Multi-jurisdiction strategy with foreign counsel in the US, UK, China, India.
Prevention plans, IP policies, training to avoid future disputes.
As early as possible. Ideally when you first detect a potential infringement, receive a cease and desist or notice an opposition. Early counsel preserves procedural options (opposition windows, Saisie-contrefaçon, customs detention) and avoids defensive mistakes such as poorly worded cease and desist replies.
Not always. Many disputes resolve through negotiation, mediation, or administrative procedures at INPI or EUIPO. A well-executed cease and desist closes a significant share of online infringement cases. Litigation is one tool among several, used when leverage requires court intervention.
Yes. We deliver pre-action risk opinions that score the strength of your rights, the validity defences likely raised, the procedural posture and the estimated damages. Many clients use these opinions for internal decision making, insurance coverage and board reporting.
We coordinate with our trusted network of foreign counsel in the US, UK, China, India, Brazil and other key jurisdictions. The objective is a coherent strategy across borders: parallel filings, consistent factual narrative, joint settlement positions and centralised case management.
We deploy a rapid defensive playbook: deadline mapping, validity challenge analysis (invalidity counter-claim, non-use defence, exhaustion), settlement window assessment, evidence preservation and parallel strategy on administrative tracks at INPI or EUIPO.
Strategic IP advisory is typically billed on a fixed-fee basis per phase (audit, opinion, action plan) with optional success fees for negotiated settlements. For full-blown litigation, we propose phased budgets with milestone-based billing and clear cost caps.
