Counterfeiting lawyer Paris: take down listings and secure proof.

Removal first goes through the notification mechanism that every hosting provider must put in place, accessible and usable by electronic means (Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). A notice may cover several listings, provided it gives the exact URL of each; it explains how the product infringes the trade mark, design or work, identifies the right by its number where one exists, or the elements establishing the rights in the work, and contains a statement of good faith. The platform acknowledges receipt, then notifies its decision and the remedies available against it. Before this step, the evidence must be fixed, because the removed listing disappears and the seller can republish it under another name. If the seller persists and the right relied on is a trade mark, Article L. 716-4-6 of the Intellectual Property Code allows the court to be asked, by urgent application, for a measure against the alleged infringer or against the intermediaries whose services it uses. For a work distributed online, Article L. 336-2 opens an accelerated procedure on the merits against any person able to help remedy the infringement. The firm can prepare the notices and checks, before anything is sent, that the right relied on does cover the products concerned, since an unfounded notice can be challenged by the seller.

Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 lists four elements: a sufficiently substantiated explanation of the reasons why the content is illegal, the exact electronic location, such as the URL, the name and email address of the notifying party, and a statement confirming their good faith. The notice is deemed to give knowledge of the illegality where it allows a diligent hosting provider to identify it without detailed legal examination. The URL is not a detail. The Paris judicial court dismissed a rights holder that complained that a video platform had not removed films, noting that "the reports and letters sent by the company FSF contain no reference to the URL of the illegal videos" (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 1 October 2026, No. 24/05403). The videos subsequently identified by their URL in records were removed within periods held to comply with the obligation to act expeditiously, and the court also rejected liability based on Article L. 137-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, noting the rights holder's lack of cooperation. A useful notice therefore identifies each listing, attaches the certificate of the right or the elements of creation, and compares the product offered with the original on the points that characterise the copy.

Not in principle. A hosting provider that stores its users' listings is not liable for them as long as it has no knowledge of their illegal nature and, for a claim for damages, of facts that make it apparent, or if it removes them expeditiously as soon as it becomes aware of them (Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). This status presupposes a neutral role. In a subletting case, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment that refused hosting-provider status to a platform exercising influence over the content of listings and promoting some of them, recalling that "the operator plays an active role where it provides assistance which consists in particular in optimising the presentation of the offers for sale concerned or in promoting them" (our translation) (Cass. com., 7 January 2026, No. 24-13.163). The opposite outcome exists. After cassation, the Lyon Court of Appeal recognised hosting-provider status for a classified-ads website despite its payment, delivery and advertising services, because it published the ads "without a role such as to give it knowledge or control of that data" (our translation) (CA Lyon, 8th ch., 10 December 2025, No. 24/05410). The claim against the platform was then dismissed. The firm therefore examines the platform's actual functions before bringing it into the case, and directs the action primarily against the seller.

The removal of a listing does not guarantee that the seller will not republish it, and the intermediary is under no general obligation to monitor the information it stores (Article 8 of the Digital Services Act). The court may nevertheless order a specific measure. The Court of Cassation approved the removal or blocking, under a periodic penalty payment limited to six months, of identified copies of video games, holding that the measure "imposed on that company only a monitoring activity targeted at very specific content and temporary in nature" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 26 February 2025, No. 23-15.966). By contrast, a prohibition covering all future listings using a company's name, without time limit, was quashed because it "amounts to subjecting it to a general obligation to monitor the information stored, requiring it to make an autonomous assessment of the content of those listings" (our translation) (Cass. com., 27 March 2024, No. 22-21.586). The Regulation also requires online platforms that are neither micro nor small enterprises (Article 19) to suspend, after a warning, users who frequently provide manifestly illegal content (Article 23). The firm therefore documents each reappearance by URL and date, then makes a request limited to the content identified and to a fixed period.

It can be enough, since counterfeiting may be proved by any means (Article L. 716-4-7 of the Intellectual Property Code). The Paris judicial court recalls that "screenshots are not by nature devoid of probative value" (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 27 June 2024, No. 22/02990). In that case, the screenshot bore the date and the URL of the site, and the company concerned had acknowledged in writing its use of the photograph. These consistent elements convinced the court of the reliability of the exhibit. The same decision shows the limit of the exercise: proof of use was not enough, and the claim based on copyright was rejected, the agency obtaining only reduced compensation in civil liability. A single screenshot, without visible URL or date, remains open to challenge. Where the offer is substantial, or where the seller disputes it, a record by a judicial officer offers a stronger guarantee. The firm assesses the strength of the screenshots already gathered and decides whether they need to be supplemented before any step is taken.

The judicial officer describes the equipment, the IP address and the network, empties the cache, deletes temporary files, cookies and history, disables the proxy, then browses to the pages in dispute, describing each step. The Paris Court of Appeal recalls that "compliance with a number of technical prerequisites, intended to ensure the integrity of the records made, is required of the judicial officer drawing up the report" (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 17 June 2026, No. 24/07818). Omitting these safeguards can ruin the case. The Paris judicial court set aside a report whose author had pasted deep links into the browser, "without going through the home page of the site consulted, or describing the pages visited to reach them" (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 23 January 2025, No. 22/03006). In the absence of other evidence, the alleged trade mark infringement was not upheld. A good record also shows the path of an ordinary buyer: the home page, the search, the product page, the seller's name and, if possible, the country of delivery. The firm drafts the instructions for the record and reviews the draft to check that each relevant listing appears in it with its full address.

A test purchase makes it possible to prove the actual sale, the origin of the shipment and the exact nature of the product, which the online listing does not always show. The Court of Cassation has relaxed the requirements applying to the third-party buyer. In a dispute concerning a purchase in a shop, the mixed chamber held that "the absence of sufficient guarantees of independence of the third-party buyer from the applicant is not such as to entail the nullity of the record of purchase" (our translation) (Cass. ch. mixte, 12 May 2025, No. 22-20.739). The court then assesses whether this lack of independence affects the probative value of the record, in light of all the evidence. The solution does not remove the need for rigour. As a precaution, the buyer's identity appears in the report, the order is placed under the supervision of the judicial officer and receipt of the parcel is recorded, with the packaging, the invoice and the shipping label. Where the evidence is held by the seller, infringement seizure authorised by an order on application remains available (Article L. 716-4-7). It must be followed by an action on the merits within a period set by regulation, failing which the person subject to the seizure may obtain its annulment. The firm chooses between these measures according to the volume of sales and the risk of concealment.

For the damage suffered in France, often yes. The Paris judicial court holds that "the accessibility, within the jurisdiction of the court seised, of a website alleged to be involved in the facts in dispute is enough to establish the jurisdiction of that court" (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., pre-trial judge, 8 July 2026, No. 25/04692). A record establishing that the publications were accessible from Paris founded its jurisdiction. The same order marks the limit: the judge declared itself without jurisdiction over the claims relating to damage suffered outside French territory and referred the parties to the proper forum for those claims. In copyright matters, civil actions fall solely within the judicial courts designated by regulation (Article L. 331-1 of the Intellectual Property Code). In that case, which concerned copyright, an unregistered Community design and parasitic competition, accessibility alone was enough and the arguments based on the targeted public were held to be ineffective. Other criteria may apply depending on the right relied on and the defendant; as a precaution, the record also establishes, where possible, that the offer is directed at the French public and that delivery to France is available. The firm also checks where the seller's assets are located, since enforcing a judgment abroad follows its own rules.

The Digital Services Act requires platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, other than micro and small enterprises (Article 29), to obtain from the trader, before it offers its products to consumers in the Union, its name, address and contact details, an identification document or electronic identification, the details of its payment account and, where applicable, its registration number (Article 30). The name, contact details and registration number must appear on the listing interface: they should be noted first. This obligation has contours that the urgent applications judge has clarified. Seised of a claim that concerned not counterfeiting but private-copying remuneration, the judge accepted that "this provision gives rise to a not seriously contestable obligation on the operator of a platform to ask sellers for a self-certification that the products they market comply with European Union rules" (our translation) (TJ Paris, urgent applications, 6 May 2026, No. 25/58771). The judge nevertheless held that there were no grounds for an urgent order, since it was not established that this verification extended to sellers' administrative obligations. For trade mark infringement, the direct route is the right of information: the court may order the production of documents held by any person who provides services used in the activities alleged to infringe (Article L. 716-4-9). Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure also allows an investigative measure before any proceedings.

For a trade mark, yes, if the evidence reasonably available makes the infringement of rights plausible (Article L. 716-4-6 of the Intellectual Property Code). The urgent applications judge of the Paris judicial court states that "the plausibility of the alleged infringement depends, on the one hand, on the apparent validity of the right on which the action is based and, on the other hand, on the plausibility of the alleged counterfeiting" (our translation) (TJ Paris, urgent applications, 16 January 2024, No. 23/57118). In that case, the judge prohibited the use of the signs in dispute, including as search-engine referencing, under a periodic penalty payment, ordered disclosure of the referencing invoices and awarded an interim payment of €10,000. The measure may target the alleged infringer or the intermediaries whose services it uses. It may also consist of the seizure or handing over to a third party of the products, to prevent their circulation in the channels of commerce. An urgent application requires an apparently valid right and evidence already in place. The firm checks both points before the writ of summons. The judge may also make the enforcement of the measures subject to a guarantee intended to compensate the defendant if the action is later found unfounded or the measures are annulled.

Not automatically. In light of the function of indicating origin, buying a keyword identical to a trade mark is wrongful only if the advertisement does not enable, or enables only with difficulty, the average internet user to know whether the products come from the proprietor or from a third party. The Court of Cassation approved the rejection of an infringement action: the advertisement did not use the sign, displayed the name of the advertiser's site and described the activity in ordinary terms. It added, as to the site's source code, that "the average internet user was informed of the origin of the site whose result appeared among the natural search results" (our translation) (Cass. com., 18 October 2023, No. 20-20.055). The situation changes where the advertisement sustains confusion. The Paris urgent applications judge prohibited a competitor from any use of the signs in dispute, including as search-engine referencing, after finding the infringement plausible (TJ Paris, urgent applications, 16 January 2024, No. 23/57118). A trade mark with a reputation is also protected against use that takes unfair advantage of its reputation or is detrimental to it (Article L. 713-3). The firm has the results page and the text of the advertisement recorded, then assesses the risk of confusion before choosing between a complaint to the advertising provider, a formal notice and an action.

The regime depends on the route of the consignment. For goods entering the customs territory of the Union, customs intervention falls under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013: the right holder files an application for action in advance and, after detention, has ten working days, or three for perishable goods, to initiate proceedings, unless the holder agrees to destruction (Article 23). Outside the cases governed by Union rules, Article L. 716-8 of the Intellectual Property Code allows customs, on the written request of the proprietor of a registered trade mark, to detain goods alleged to be counterfeit. The measure lapses automatically where, within ten working days of its notification, the applicant has presented to customs neither protective measures ordered by the civil court, nor proof of a civil or criminal action accompanied by guarantees for the holder, nor a complaint to the public prosecutor (procureur de la République). On a reasoned application, customs may grant a maximum of ten further working days. Customs also has its own powers. The Court of Cassation held that "the unlawful possession of goods subject to proof of Community origin constitutes a customs offence and authorises the customs services to seize those goods" (our translation) (Cass. com., 7 March 2018, No. 16-24.851), whether or not they had previously been detained. The firm can prepare the application for action and organise the proceedings within the period that follows notification of the detention.

A hosting provider that knows the seller's electronic contact details must send the seller a clear and specific statement of reasons for the restriction (Article 17 of the Digital Services Act). The online platform, unless it is a micro or small enterprise (Article 19), gives the seller access to an internal complaint-handling system, electronic and at no charge, for at least six months following its decision (Article 20). The complaint is the first step, and it should be prepared with care. A seller of genuine products produces the invoices of its authorised supplier. A seller of a different product checks the scope of the right relied on: products designated, registration in force, territory, actual similarity. The Regulation also provides for the suspension, after a warning, of the processing of notices from those who frequently submit manifestly unfounded notices (Article 23(2)). Where the notice rests on a questionable right, the seller may respond on the merits. The trade mark proprietor has five years to act, from the day on which it knew, or should have known, of the last fact enabling it to bring the action (Article L. 716-4-2). The firm can examine the notice, gather the supply documents and draft the complaint, then, if the removal persists without foundation, the request for reinstatement and compensation.