Trademark registration lawyer in Paris: prepare, file and secure your filing date.

Two separate checks come before any filing. The first concerns the sign itself: it must not describe a characteristic of the goods or services, nor have become customary, nor lack distinctive character, nor deceive the public (Article L. 711-2 of the Intellectual Property Code). The second concerns third-party rights: earlier trademarks, company names, trade names, shop signs, domain names whose reach is not merely local, and copyright in a logo. Article L. 711-3 gives an open list of these prior rights, and the Court of Cassation has confirmed that the list in the former text was not exhaustive, finding an infringement of the State's right in the name France against the France.com trademarks (Cass. com., 6 April 2022, No. 17-28.116).

The search covers identical and similar matches in the French, European and international registers, then in the company and domain name registers. It is read product by product: against an ordinary earlier trademark, a similar sign is a problem only if the goods or services are identical or similar. A well-known mark, a copyright, a personality right or a geographical indication each follows its own conditions, as does a bad-faith filing. The firm records the search and its results, because they are then used to decide on the specification, the territory, or even the choice of another sign.

The specification fixes the scope of the monopoly: registration confers a property right in the mark for the goods or services designated (Article L. 713-1 of the Intellectual Property Code). It is drafted from the actual business and from seriously envisaged developments, class by class under the Nice Classification, with precise terms rather than whole class headings copied without examination.

Two risks frame this drafting. A specification that is too narrow leaves a neighbouring range unprotected, for example scented candles launched under the trademark of a cosmetics line that did not cover them. A specification that is too broad exposes each unused item to revocation after five years without genuine use (Article L. 714-5 of the Intellectual Property Code), and may, depending on the circumstances, support a bad-faith challenge where the applicant had no intention to use the mark. The Court of Cassation recalls that "the registration of a trademark without the applicant having any intention of using it for the goods and services covered by that registration is capable of constituting bad faith" (Cass. com., 13 November 2025, No. 24-14.355) (our translation). The firm therefore proposes a specification that can be justified item by item, and documents the projects that underpin the items not yet used.

The choice depends on the real markets and the risk of opposition. A French trademark filed with the INPI protects French territory. The European Union trademark, filed with the EUIPO, has unitary character: it has the same effect throughout the Union and can be registered, declared invalid or revoked only for the whole Union (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, Article 1). A single prior right in one Member State can therefore defeat the entire European application, which calls for a wider search.

International registration goes through the WIPO and designates, country by country, the territories protected. The Court of Cassation draws a practical consequence: the international application or registration is deemed to have been made in each designated State, and "the courts of a State that is not designated, even the one in whose territory the basic application or basic registration was made, have no jurisdiction to hear an application for annulment of all or part of the international trademark" (Cass. com., 4 September 2024, No. 22-13.044) (our translation). The firm compares the three routes in light of the commercial calendar, the prior rights identified and the countries where the business already sells.

The duration depends mainly on incidents. An admissible application is published in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin within six weeks of its receipt by the INPI (Article R. 712-8 of the Intellectual Property Code). A two-month period then opens during which anyone may submit observations on the validity of the sign (Article L. 712-3 of the Intellectual Property Code) and holders of prior rights may file an opposition (Article L. 712-4 of the Intellectual Property Code).

With no observation, no opposition and no objection from the examiner, the mark is then registered. A notification of irregularity, an opposition or a draft rejection adds an adversarial phase whose length depends on the exchanges. The opposition is examined in adversarial proceedings, and is deemed rejected if the Director General of the INPI has not ruled within the regulatory time limit (Article L. 712-5 of the Intellectual Property Code). The effects of registration nevertheless date back to the filing date, for ten years (Article L. 712-1 of the Intellectual Property Code). For each file, the firm indicates the known deadlines and those that will depend on the INPI or on third parties.

The INPI rejects the application in whole or in part if the sign cannot constitute a trademark, lacks distinctive character, is exclusively descriptive or exclusively customary, unless distinctiveness was acquired through use before filing, or if an opposition is upheld (Article L. 712-7 of the Intellectual Property Code). The notification opens a period to submit observations or to correct the application, often by limiting the specification to the goods for which the objection does not apply.

The response must be complete from this stage. As regards a challenge to the decision of rejection, the Paris Court of Appeal recalls that such a challenge "is not an appeal on the merits but an action for annulment without devolutive effect", and that "the court can rule only on the basis of the documents and arguments that were submitted to the Director General of the INPI" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 2, 6 June 2025, No. 24/02367) (our translation). In that case, which went against the applicant, the partial refusal of the sign FIER D'ETRE PARISIEN was upheld and the new documents were set aside. The firm therefore gathers, before the time limit expires, the arguments on how the sign is perceived and the relevant evidence of use.

Not automatically, but a difference of class is not enough to rule out the risk. The conflict is assessed between the signs and between the goods or services, without stopping at the class number (Article L. 711-3 of the Intellectual Property Code). Two goods of different kinds may be held similar where they meet the same needs, are sold in the same outlets or are used together.

The Paris Court of Appeal held so in a case that went against the applicant: the application for RIMBAUD PARIS for clothing was blocked by an opposition based on an earlier RIMBAUD trademark covering perfumes and cosmetics, the court holding that "a low degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the signs and vice versa" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 2 April 2025, No. 23/12289) (our translation). The prior-rights search must therefore cover the classes close to the business, not just the main class. Where a risk appears, the firm considers narrowing the specification, modifying the sign, checking the use of the earlier trademark or requesting a coexistence agreement.

Yes. An opposition may be based on a company name, or on a trade name, a shop sign or a domain name whose reach is not merely local, if there is a risk of confusion in the mind of the public (Article L. 712-4 of the Intellectual Property Code). These rights do not appear in the trademark registers: a search limited to the INPI is not enough.

The Court of Cassation states that "the holder of a prior right may bring an action for nullity of the registered trademark if there is a risk of confusion in the mind of the public, even where the holder of the contested trademark has a right older than that of the third party challenging it" (Cass. com., 10 January 2024, No. 22-21.716) (our translation). In the case decided, regional companies were able to defend their company names against the trademark filed by a company of the same network. An applicant who considers that the third party tolerated its use must prove it: "A party who raises time bar by acquiescence against an action for nullity of its trademark must show its honest and continuous use for more than five years, which cannot be inferred from its registration alone, together with the knowledge of that use held by the holder of the prior right who is being set against it" (Cass. com., 6 April 2022, No. 17-28.116) (our translation). This time bar requires five consecutive years of tolerance with knowledge of the use, and does not apply against a trademark filed in bad faith (Article L. 716-2-8 of the Intellectual Property Code).

A slogan can be registered if it is perceived as an indication of commercial origin, and not as a mere promotional message. The assessment concerns the sign taken as a whole, in relation to the goods and services concerned and the relevant public. The Court of Cassation holds that distinctive character "is assessed at the filing date in light of the relevant public's knowledge of the contested term" (Cass. com., 6 December 2023, No. 22-16.078) (our translation).

In a decision against the applicant, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge to the refusal of the sign O.U.I - ORIGINAL UNIQUE INDIVIDUEL for cosmetics, noting that the string of adjectives would be understood as a slogan praising the products, and recalling that "the Institute is not bound by its earlier decisions" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 2, 27 March 2026, No. 24/15714) (our translation). The past registration of comparable signs therefore guarantees nothing. The firm tests how the slogan is perceived, looks for a more arbitrary construction or gathers evidence of distinctiveness acquired through use before filing.

The sign must not be contrary to public policy or its use prohibited by law, and it must not be limited to the customary designation of the goods or services (Article L. 711-2 of the Intellectual Property Code). Such a characterisation is not automatic, however. The Court of Cassation has held that "the fact that a term is the legal designation of a regulated activity is not enough to make it a sign contrary to public policy" (Cass. com., 14 October 2020, No. 18-16.887) (our translation).

In that case, the collective mark CRÉDIT MUTUEL was upheld, the court of appeal having found, product by product, that the public perceived the sign as designating the commercial origin of the group's services, following long-standing and documented use. That outcome rests on distinctiveness acquired through use, established by documents and a survey; it does not allow a new generic term to be registered. For a business launching an activity, the firm generally advises against signs that describe the service and steers towards an arbitrary element, possibly combined with the descriptive term.

Two routes exist. An action to claim ownership allows a person who considers that they have a right in the trademark to obtain its transfer where registration was applied for in fraud of their rights or in breach of a legal or contractual obligation; it is subject to a five-year limitation period from publication, unless the applicant acted in bad faith (Article L. 712-6 of the Intellectual Property Code). An action for nullity for a bad-faith filing aims to remove the title and is not subject to any limitation period, save for statutory exceptions (Article L. 716-2-6 of the Intellectual Property Code).

These claims are not interchangeable: a claim for ownership leaves the trademark in place for the claimant and "does not pursue the same ends as an application for nullity of such a filing, which aims to annul that industrial property title" (Cass. com., 28 January 2026, No. 24-14.760) (our translation). The same decision accepts that bad faith may be established by a body of evidence without any risk of confusion being shown. The Court of Cassation adds that "bad faith does not require, to be established, that a specific third party be targeted" (Cass. com., 13 November 2025, No. 24-14.355) (our translation). The choice between the two routes is made in light of the chronology and of the interest in recovering or removing the title.

Registration lasts ten years from the filing date and is renewable without limit, and may be limited to some of the goods or services designated; by contrast, a change to the sign or an extension of the list requires a new application (Article L. 712-9 of the Intellectual Property Code). The renewal declaration is filed in the year preceding expiry, with an additional period of six months on payment of a supplementary fee (Article R. 712-24 of the Intellectual Property Code). The INPI informs the holder, but the absence of such information has no effect on expiry.

These time limits are strict. The Court of Cassation holds that "The time limit for declaring the renewal of a trademark registration with the INPI is not contentious in nature" and approves the exclusion of relief from forfeiture for that time limit (Cass. com., 15 October 2025, No. 24-10.651) (our translation). It nevertheless set aside the rejection of renewal in the particular case of a claimant who could be entered in the register only after proceedings lasting more than thirteen years, by postponing the start of the time limit to that entry. This case-specific solution does not remove the need to monitor deadlines. The firm enters each date in the calendar and checks, before renewal, that the specification still matches actual use.