Choosing a name for a French company looks like a registration task until another business sends a cease-and-desist letter. A foreign founder may then see the same expression in a company extract, on a website, in a trademark register and in a commercial contract. Those appearances do not create one single legal right, and they do not automatically send every dispute to the same French court. The correct route depends on the right relied on, the remedy requested and whether an enforceable trademark question is genuinely part of the case.

That distinction matters even more after the Commercial Chamber of the French Court of Cassation issued its decision of 2 September 2026 in appeal no. 25-12.118. The Court treated a claim based only on the usurpation of a company name differently from a civil claim relating to an active trademark. The label used in a letter or a pleading is therefore not enough. A founder should identify the protected sign, its date and geographical reach, the products or services concerned, the evidence of confusion and the exact relief sought before choosing a forum.

This guide explains the practical decision in English for founders and companies setting up in France. It uses the French terms that will appear in official records, but defines each acronym: INPI is the Institut national de la propriété industrielle, France’s intellectual-property office; RNE is the Registre national des entreprises, the National Register of Enterprises; Kbis is the official extract showing a company’s registration; and the greffe is the court registry. For the wider incorporation context, see this French company formation and corporate-law guide.

I. How do you tell a French company-name dispute from a trademark dispute?

A. What is protected: the company name, the trading identity or the trademark?

The first question is not “which name appeared first?” It is “what legal asset is each party asking the court to protect?” A French company normally has a statutory name, a commercial name used in dealings with customers, an establishment sign or a domain name, and it may also own one or more trademarks. The same words can appear in all four places, but registration in one system does not automatically confer the full protection associated with another system.

For a company name, the starting point is Article L. 210-2 of the French Commercial Code. The provision states: La forme, la durée qui ne peut excéder quatre-vingt-dix-neuf ans, la dénomination sociale, le siège social, l’objet social et le montant du capital social sont déterminés par les statuts de la société. In practical terms, the name is part of the company’s constitutional information. It appears in the articles of association, in the RNE and on the company’s registration documents. A Kbis, which is the official company-registration extract issued through the greffe, is useful evidence of the name and its registration date. It does not, by itself, prove that every later use of similar wording infringes a trademark or creates actionable confusion in every market.

A foreign founder should also distinguish a statutory company name from a commercial name. The first identifies the legal entity. The second is the identity used in the market, on signs, invoices, websites or marketing. A domain name identifies an internet address. The legal test may involve the same commercial reality, but the documents needed to establish priority and confusion will differ. This is why an RNE search is only one part of the clearance process. The INPI’s guidance on company names, commercial names and signs should be read alongside a trademark search and a domain-name review.

A trademark is a separate industrial-property right. Article L. 711-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, or CPI, defines it as follows: La marque de produits ou de services est un signe servant à distinguer les produits ou services d’une personne physique ou morale de ceux d’autres personnes physiques ou morales. The registered protection is tied to the goods and services identified in the registration and to the sign as registered. A trademark may be owned by the French company itself, by a foreign parent, or by a different group company under a licence. The corporate documents, the trademark certificate and any licence should therefore be compared before a demand is sent or proceedings are started.

Article L. 711-3 of the CPI shows why a company name can be an earlier right in a trademark analysis. It provides that a mark may be refused or declared invalid when it harms earlier rights, including: Une dénomination ou une raison sociale, s’il existe un risque de confusion dans l’esprit du public, and also Un nom commercial, une enseigne ou un nom de domaine, dont la portée n’est pas seulement locale, s’il existe un risque de confusion dans l’esprit du public. The words “earlier right” do not mean that a company registration automatically defeats every later mark. The claimant still needs to establish the relevant earlier right, its scope, the public concerned and a risk of confusion.

Before incorporating, a founder should search the exact wording, close spellings, phonetic equivalents and translations. The official Service-Public explanation of a free company-name availability search on Data INPI points to the public business information service. The INPI also provides a trademark database search and explains why a name, logo, company name and domain name should be checked as separate identifiers. A serious clearance file should retain the search date, search terms, classes or activities examined, results found and any written advice received. A screenshot without a date and URL is weaker evidence than a dated export that can later be authenticated.

The same analysis applies after incorporation. If a rival uses a confusingly similar statutory name, the claim may concern unfair competition or the usurpation of a company or commercial name. If the rival uses a sign for goods or services covered by an active trademark, the claim may be trademark infringement. If the complaint asks the authority to remove or invalidate the trademark registration itself, the claim may fall within the INPI’s administrative jurisdiction. These are different legal routes, even where the visible sign is identical.

B. What did the 2 September 2026 Court of Cassation decision change?

The key authority for the angle covered by this article is the Commercial Chamber’s decision of 2 September 2026, appeal no. 25-12.118, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2026:CO00411. The official decision is available on the Court of Cassation website. It concerned the boundary between a claim involving trademark law and a claim based on the alleged usurpation of a company name. The Court examined the real legal basis of the claim rather than treating the presence of a trademark reference as conclusive.

The Court reproduced the jurisdictional rule in Article L. 716-5, II of the CPI: les actions civiles et demandes relatives aux marques, autres que les demandes en nullité et en déchéance de marque visées au I de cet article, y compris lorsqu’elles portent également sur une question connexe de concurrence déloyale, sont exclusivement portées devant des tribunaux judiciaires, déterminés par voie réglementaire. The practical meaning is that a civil action genuinely relating to a trademark, even when accompanied by a connected unfair-competition claim, is assigned to the judicial courts designated by regulation. The word “connected” does not turn every dispute about a business identity into a trademark action.

In the case decided on 2 September 2026, the mark relied on was no longer in force. The claim that remained was based on the alleged usurpation of a company name. The Court held that this claim did not require an examination of trademark law and that the commercial court retained jurisdiction. That conclusion is important for a foreign founder who receives a letter saying “trademark infringement” when the claimant’s registration has been withdrawn, has expired, does not cover the relevant activity or is not actually part of the relief requested. The founder should verify the register and the statement of claim instead of accepting the label.

The decision creates a practical three-way classification.

• Trademark invalidity or revocation: a request for nullity or revocation of a trademark is subject to the provisions assigning those applications to the INPI in Article L. 716-1 and Article L. 716-5, I of the CPI. Article L. 716-1 describes the effect of a decision declaring a mark invalid or revoked; the official text is available on Légifrance.
• Civil trademark litigation: an infringement claim or another civil request genuinely relating to an active mark falls under Article L. 716-5, II and the designated judicial courts. The issue may include the scope of registration, likelihood of confusion, use in commerce, or the remedies attached to the mark.
• Company-name or commercial-name usurpation: if the pleaded claim is only an unfair-competition or identity dispute and no live trademark question has to be decided, the commercial court may be the proper forum, as illustrated by appeal no. 25-12.118.

There can be a fourth, mixed situation in practice: a claimant may combine a trademark infringement claim, a company-name claim and a request for damages. The pleading should separate the legal bases and the remedies. A court will examine the substance of the requests, and the choice of forum can turn on whether the trademark issues are real and necessary to decide the dispute. A founder should not artificially remove a trademark issue merely to reach a preferred court; equally, a claimant should not add a dormant mark as a label to displace the commercial court.

The general civil-liability foundation for unfair competition is Article 1240 of the French Civil Code: Tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer. The full provision is on Légifrance. The Commercial Chamber clarified in its decision of 7 September 2022, appeal no. 21-12.602, that Il en résulte que la caractérisation d’une faute de concurrence déloyale n’exige pas la constatation d’un élément intentionnel. The verified decision is available here. A foreign company should therefore focus its evidence on the wrongful conduct, the confusion or other unfair effect and the loss, not on trying to prove that the rival admitted an intention to copy.

II. Which French court and which evidence should a foreign founder use?

A. Which court has jurisdiction, and how should the claim be framed?

Once the protected asset and remedy have been identified, the next task is forum selection. In English discussions, “court” can sound like a single institution. France has several first-instance courts with different subject-matter jurisdictions. The tribunal judiciaire, usually abbreviated TJ, is the ordinary civil court of first instance. A tribunal de commerce is the commercial court. The designated judicial courts for intellectual-property litigation are not necessarily the same court as the commercial court at the company’s registered office.

The Code of Judicial Organisation, or COJ, directs the reader to the regulatory table for intellectual-property jurisdiction. Article D. 211-6-1 states: Le siège et le ressort des tribunaux judiciaires ayant compétence exclusive pour connaître des actions en matière de propriété littéraire et artistique, de dessins et modèles, de marques et d’indications géographiques, dans les cas et conditions prévus par le code de la propriété intellectuelle, sont fixés conformément au tableau VI annexé au présent code. The official text is available on Légifrance. A claimant should check the current table and the location rules rather than assume that the court nearest the French company is competent for a trademark action.

Territorial jurisdiction is a separate question from subject-matter jurisdiction. Article 42 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, or CPC, provides: La juridiction territorialement compétente est, sauf disposition contraire, celle du lieu où demeure le défendeur. S’il y a plusieurs défendeurs, le demandeur saisit, à son choix, la juridiction du lieu où demeure l’un d’eux. Si le défendeur n’a ni domicile ni résidence connus, le demandeur peut saisir la juridiction du lieu où il demeure ou celle de son choix s’il demeure à l’étranger. The exact provision is Article 42 CPC on Légifrance.

Article 46 CPC gives additional choices in defined cases. It states: Le demandeur peut saisir à son choix, outre la juridiction du lieu où demeure le défendeur : – en matière contractuelle, la juridiction du lieu de la livraison effective de la chose ou du lieu de l’exécution de la prestation de service ; – en matière délictuelle, la juridiction du lieu du fait dommageable ou celle dans le ressort de laquelle le dommage a été subi ; – en matière mixte, la juridiction du lieu où est situé l’immeuble ; – en matière d’aliments, la juridiction du lieu où demeure le créancier. The full article is published on Légifrance. For a name dispute, the potentially relevant part is the tort or delict option, but the facts and the legal basis must support the chosen venue.

For a foreign founder, the defendant’s location can create a second layer of difficulty. A French subsidiary may have its registered office in Lyon, while its foreign parent owns the mark and the alleged conduct is visible throughout France. A parent company may be sued abroad or joined in France depending on the claims and applicable rules. Service of proceedings outside France, translations, powers of attorney, evidence obtained from a foreign registry and the authority of a group company to sue all need to be checked early. A Kbis can identify the French entity and its registered office, but it cannot prove that the foreign parent is the trademark owner or that the French entity has standing to enforce the right.

The pleading should therefore state four things clearly:

1. the sign relied on and the legal asset it represents;
2. the registration, first-use, renewal, expiry or withdrawal dates;
3. the conduct alleged, including the products, services, channels and territory; and
4. the orders requested, such as cessation, a name change, transfer or deactivation of a domain, damages, publication or an administrative decision concerning validity.

This structure makes the jurisdictional issue visible. If the claimant asks the court to invalidate a registered mark, that request should not be disguised as a company-name claim. If the claimant wants compensation for a rival company using a confusing corporate identity, but no active mark has to be interpreted or enforced, the 25-12.118 decision supports a different analysis. The commercial court is not a shortcut for avoiding intellectual-property rules; it is the forum for a materially different cause of action.

The result also affects pre-action correspondence. A demand should identify the registration number, the owner, the protected classes, the alleged use and the requested correction. A vague letter that alternates between “trademark infringement,” “passing off,” “unfair competition” and “name theft” may provoke an avoidable jurisdictional fight. A measured response should ask the sender to specify which right is asserted and whether the mark is active on the date of the complaint. That request is particularly important where the current dispute follows a failed or withdrawn trademark filing.

B. What should a foreign founder prove before asking for a name change or damages?

The evidence should be built as a timeline. Start with the earliest reliable date for every sign: incorporation, RNE registration, the first public use of a commercial name, the domain registration, the trademark filing, the trademark registration, the first sale and the first complaint. Then connect each date to the market in which the sign was used. A company that existed in France before a rival’s registration may have a strong earlier-right argument, but the strength of that argument still depends on the actual use and the risk of confusion. A trademark filed first may be powerful for its registered goods and services, but it does not answer every dispute involving the corporate name of a different business.

Keep the corporate record complete. A French company should preserve its articles of association, the Kbis extracts showing successive names, notices of a name change, shareholder resolutions, invoices, contracts, bank documents, website terms and dated marketing material. If the name was changed through the Guichet unique, retain the filing confirmation and the updated extract. The greffe or registry record shows what was declared; it does not replace evidence of how customers encountered the name. A foreign founder should keep certified copies and, where required, French translations of foreign corporate records, trademark certificates and licence agreements.

For a trademark claim, preserve the official registration, the list of goods and services, renewals, ownership transfers, coexistence agreements and licences. Confirm the owner before sending a demand. A group’s parent company may own the mark while the French subsidiary uses it under a licence. That distinction affects standing, the persons who can seek relief and the evidence of authorised use. Article L. 713-2 of the CPI prohibits, without the owner’s authorisation, use in the course of business of an identical or similar sign where there is a risk of confusion. Its text includes: 2° D’un signe identique ou similaire … s’il existe, dans l’esprit du public, un risque de confusion incluant le risque d’association du signe avec la marque. The official provision is available on Légifrance. The omitted portions of the provision contain the full statutory conditions, so the registration and the actual use must be reviewed together.

Risk of confusion is not measured only by counting identical letters. In its decision of 14 April 2021, appeal no. 18-21.695, the Commercial Chamber stated: Le risque de confusion doit s’apprécier globalement, par référence au contenu des enregistrements des marques, vis-à-vis du consommateur des produits ou services tels que désignés par ces enregistrements et sans tenir compte des conditions d’exploitation des marques ni de l’activité de leur titulaire. The official decision is published by the Court of Cassation. The founder should therefore compare the signs, the registered goods and services and the relevant public, rather than rely only on the parties’ current marketing choices.

For a company-name or commercial-name claim, collect proof of market presence: customer emails, mistaken telephone calls, misdirected payments, search results, enquiries intended for the other company, online reviews, sales leads, tenders, press articles and dated advertising. Show where the confusion occurred and what loss followed. The fact that two names are similar is not always enough. A geographically distant business serving a different professional market may create little practical confusion, while two companies with different legal forms may still be confused if they sell to the same customers through the same channels.

The Court of Cassation’s decision of 26 March 2025, appeal no. 23-13.589, is useful when the dispute concerns a name and a domain. It explains: Le nom commercial et le nom de domaine ont pour objet, le premier, d’identifier une entreprise et, le second, de permettre l’accès à un site internet. The same decision adds: Un acte de concurrence déloyale peut résulter de l’atteinte fautive à un nom commercial ou à un nom de domaine, lorsqu’existe un risque de confusion entre les entreprises désignées sous les noms commerciaux concernés ou entre les noms de domaine. Both propositions can be checked in the official decision no. 23-13.589. A domain name is therefore important evidence, but a domain registration alone should not be treated as a universal trademark right.

A foreign founder should preserve digital evidence in a form that can be explained in French proceedings. Save the complete webpage, the URL, the access date and time, the account that published it and the underlying invoice or analytics report. Preserve the HTML or a PDF together with the original file when possible. For a search result, retain the search terms, location settings and date. For an email showing confusion, keep the full headers. A screenshot that cannot be linked to a person, account or date may be challenged. Where the dispute is commercially serious, obtain a formal report from a judicial officer or another accepted evidence professional rather than relying only on internal screenshots.

The founder should also separate confusion from deliberate copying. The 2022 decision no. 21-12.602 means that intent is not an essential element of unfair competition, but evidence of deliberate copying may still help explain urgency, the scale of the loss or the need for protective measures. Do not make an accusation of fraud merely because a similar name exists. State the objective facts: dates, registrations, customer mix, digital use and concrete incidents.

Before asking for a name change, work through this checklist:

• Search the RNE and Data INPI for identical and similar company names, including former names and dissolved entities.
• Search the INPI trademark database for the wording, its logo, close spellings, relevant classes and the current status of each result.
• Check domain names and public-facing commercial names, recording the date and the relevant country or market.
• Identify the earlier right, its owner, its territory, its activity and the document that proves each point.
• Map the products, services, customers, languages, sales channels and geographical overlap.
• List actual confusion incidents and connect each one to a financial or operational consequence.
• Verify whether the alleged trademark is registered, renewed, transferred, licensed, revoked, invalidated, withdrawn or expired.
• Draft the requested remedy separately: change of statutory name, cessation of a sign, domain action, damages, or an administrative validity application.

If the review shows that the rival’s mark is active and the dispute concerns use for covered goods or services, prepare for the designated judicial court route. If the requested outcome is to challenge the validity of the registration, check the INPI route under Articles L. 716-1 and L. 716-5, I. If the mark is no longer in force and the live issue is a corporate identity or commercial-name conflict, assess the commercial court route in light of appeal no. 25-12.118. That is a legal classification exercise, not a choice based on which court seems more convenient.

Finally, consider the corporate solution alongside the litigation strategy. A negotiated coexistence agreement may define territories, services, domains, language versions, logos and future filings. A voluntary company-name change may reduce business disruption, but it should be documented through the required shareholder and registry steps and should not concede rights unintentionally. Conversely, refusing every change while customers are being misdirected can increase damages and rebranding costs. A foreign founder needs advice that connects the court analysis to the Kbis, the RNE filing, the group’s trademark ownership, the French website and the contracts used with customers.

Conclusion

A French company-name dispute involving a trademark is decided by substance. First identify whether the case concerns a statutory company name, a commercial name, a domain name, an active trademark or the validity of a trademark registration. Then match the remedy to the forum. The decision of 2 September 2026 in appeal no. 25-12.118 confirms that a claim based solely on company-name usurpation can remain within the commercial court’s jurisdiction when no live trademark issue must be examined. A genuine civil trademark action belongs to the designated judicial courts, while an invalidity or revocation application may follow the INPI route.

For a founder operating from abroad, the strongest first step is a dated evidence file: registry extracts, trademark status, ownership and licences, actual use, customer overlap, confusion incidents and the relief sought. That file allows counsel to answer the two questions that matter most: what right is being enforced, and which French court has authority to decide it?

Need a quick opinion on your case

We offer a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use the French firm contact form.