Industrial design lawyer in Paris: collections, products, copying.

It all depends on the title chosen. A registration with the French intellectual property office (INPI) lasts five years from its date, and the holder may renew it in five-year periods up to twenty-five years, under Article L. 513-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code (CPI). A registered EU design follows the same logic of five years, renewable up to twenty-five years, according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822. Without any registration, that same regulation gives an unregistered EU design three years of protection, running from its first disclosure to the public in the Union, provided it is new and has individual character. For a collection whose commercial life does not exceed one or two seasons, this short protection may be enough, but it only allows copying to be prohibited. Pieces carried over from one season to the next, iconic designs and durable accessories more often justify registration. The firm reviews with you the commercial lifespan of each piece before recommending a strategy, rather than registering the whole collection as a matter of principle.

Article L. 512-2 of the CPI provides that, for designs belonging to industries that frequently renew the form and decoration of their products, registration may be made in a simplified form, under conditions set by a decree of the Council of State (Conseil d’État). Fashion, leather goods and accessories naturally fall within this logic of rapid renewal. The same article, however, attaches a severe consequence to this choice: the rights are forfeited if the registration has not been brought into line with the general requirements at the latest six months before the date planned for its publication. Simplified registration therefore protects a large number of pieces quickly, but it requires precise monitoring of the compliance deadlines for the pieces the business wishes to keep. Simplified registration automatically entails a three-year deferral of publication, under Article R. 512-10 of the CPI. At the latest six months before the end of that period, that is thirty months after filing, the applicant must waive the deferral in writing, supply conforming reproductions and prove payment of the fees, failing which total or partial forfeiture of the rights is recorded, under Article R. 512-11 of the CPI. Pieces that are not regularised therefore lose their protection, while pieces carried over must be identified before that deadline.

Article L. 511-6 of the CPI disregards, when assessing novelty and individual character, a disclosure made in the twelve months before filing where it comes from the creator or their successor in title, or from a third party acting on their information. This period protects the brand that presents its collection before choosing the pieces to register. It is not extended: the date of the first presentation to the public remains the starting point. In a case decided in 2026, a motif printed on clothing had been published on a personal Instagram account more than fourteen months before filing, then by a shop twelve months and one day before that filing. The Paris judicial court annulled the design for lack of novelty and consequently rejected all the infringement claims based on it (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., 8 July 2026, No. 23/03033). The trace of every fashion show, lookbook, trade fair and publication should therefore be kept, and the pieces the business intends to defend should be registered before the period expires. The firm reconstructs this chronology before any filing.

The two routes can coexist, but they rest on distinct requirements. A design protects a new appearance with individual character, whereas copyright protects an original work. Article L. 112-2 of the CPI also lists among works of the mind the creations of the seasonal industries of dress and adornment, which does not remove the need to show originality. The Paris judicial court thus refused protection to an impressionist-style floral print, noting about the adaptations relied on that “However, these adaptations fall rather within the technical skill of the designer, without in themselves presenting any particular originality” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 14 June 2024, No. 21/08559). All the claims were rejected, including those based on unfair competition. In another textile motif case, the same court held that the variations claimed were not original, but it found several companies liable for unfair competition and awarded €35,000 in damages (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 6 February 2026, No. 22/14500). These decisions unfavourable to copyright show the value of registration for important motifs, and of a precise design file to explain the creator’s choices.

A registered design protects against any product that leaves the informed user with the same overall visual impression, under Article L. 513-5 of the CPI, even if the competitor never saw the design. An unregistered EU design only allows copying to be prohibited: Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 excludes the independent creation of a designer who could not reasonably have known of the disclosed design. The holder must also establish the date of first disclosure in the Union and the conditions of protection. In a case concerning a foliage print reproduced on a shirt and trousers, the Paris judicial court held that “The design appearing on the disputed products thus presents an overall visual impression identical to that of Monoprix’s unregistered design and is plainly the result of copying” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 26 January 2024, No. 22/10372). It awarded an interim payment of €15,000 for infringement. As the design had expired, a ban on sales was ordered as necessary on the basis of parasitism, while the additional claim for damages in unfair competition was rejected, for lack of facts distinct from the infringement. In the case decided on 8 July 2026, by contrast, a little-viewed Instagram post was not enough, on its own, to establish a disclosure known to the specialist circles and to give rise to that unregistered design (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., 8 July 2026, No. 23/03033). The choice between these two regimes is therefore made before the copying, when the collection is created.

Article L. 511-9 of the CPI grants protection to the creator or their successor in title and treats the applicant for registration, unless proven otherwise, as the beneficiary of that protection. The Court of Cassation has specified that “The presumption arising from this provision in favour of the applicant can only be rebutted where ownership of the design is claimed by the natural person or persons who created it” (our translation) (Cass. com., 31 January 2024, No. 22-20.409). In that case, the court of appeal had declared inadmissible the action of an applicant company on the ground that the assignment relied on had not been entered in the register; the judgment was quashed and the case sent back. A competitor that is sued therefore cannot, in principle, challenge the applicant’s ownership merely by pointing to the lack of publication of an assignment. This presumption does not, however, replace contracts. For the EU design, Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 vests the right in the employer where the design is created by an employee in the execution of their duties or following their instructions, unless otherwise agreed or unless the applicable national law provides otherwise. Where the design is created by a freelance designer, a studio or a design agency, a precise written agreement on the creations concerned and consistent with the registration remains the best precaution, as Article L. 513-2 of the CPI allows the right arising from registration to be assigned or licensed. An instrument transferring rights in a registered design can be relied on against third parties only after it has been entered in the National Register of Designs (Registre national des dessins et modèles), subject to the reservation in Article L. 513-3 of the CPI. The firm checks this chain of rights before filing.

Not as regards features solely dictated by the technical function of the product, which Article L. 511-8 of the CPI excludes from protection. The same provision excludes the forms and dimensions that must necessarily be reproduced so that a product can be mechanically connected to another. A sole, a fastening, a strap or a handle may nevertheless involve aesthetic choices that go beyond the functional constraint alone. The analysis then consists of distinguishing, on the registered representations, what belongs to function and what belongs to appearance, taking into account the designer’s freedom, which Article L. 511-4 of the CPI requires to be considered when assessing individual character. The technical constraints on the designer, such as the forms already known in the sector, are shown by dated documents and not by a general assertion. The firm lists the forms known on the market before filing or acting, so that an action based on functional features does not end in a counterclaim for nullity of the design.

Where no design is reproduced, the available route is unfair competition or parasitism, based on Article 1240 of the French Civil Code (Code civil). The Court of Cassation recalls that “Parasitism results from a set of elements taken as a whole, regardless of any risk of confusion” (our translation), and then specifies: “It is for the party claiming to be the victim of parasitism to identify the individualised economic value on which it relies” (our translation) (Cass. com., 5 March 2025, No. 23-21.157). That judgment went against the claimant: the court of appeal had found that the four-lobed flower of a competing jewellery collection did not reproduce all the features of the iconic design relied on and that it derived from a motif specific to its author, adapted to fashion trends. The appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. Conversely, where several elements are taken up together, the court cannot rule out fault by examining them one by one: the Court of Cassation set aside a court of appeal that had ruled “without examining, as it was required to do, whether the taking up of these elements, considered as a whole, was not likely to create a risk of confusion in the mind of the public” (our translation) (Cass. com., 4 June 2025, No. 24-10.219). The firm therefore sets out all the elements taken, the investment made in the collection and the chronology of the launches. Simple inspiration from a trend remains permitted, and the file must establish more than a similarity of style.

Yes, subject to conditions, since a judgment of the commercial chamber of 18 March 2026. The Court of Cassation now holds there that “where they rest on the same facts, an infringement action and an action for unfair competition or based on parasitism pursue the same ends” (our translation) (Cass. com., 18 March 2026, No. 24-17.016). It infers that a party whose infringement action was rejected at first instance, for want of an exclusive right, may bring for the first time on appeal a claim for unfair competition or parasitism based on the same facts. The appeal judgment, which had declared those claims inadmissible, was partially quashed. The judgment concerned annulled trade marks that protected a watch design, but its wording covers any infringement action. It is therefore relevant to fashion disputes, where the validity of the design is often challenged by counterclaim. The same case law recalls that the two actions can be brought simultaneously as principal claims only if the unfair competition rests on a fault distinct from the facts of infringement. From the first instance, the firm therefore builds a file that separates the infringement of the title, the possible fault and the loss specific to each ground, so as to preserve a fallback if the design is annulled.

A seizure for infringement allows, on an order made on application, the products alleged to infringe and the related documents to be described or seized, under Article L. 521-4 of the CPI. The same article provides for the whole seizure to be annulled if the applicant has not brought proceedings on the merits within the regulatory period. The seizure nevertheless remains dependent on the title that justified it. In the case of the motif published on Instagram, the Paris judicial court stated that “As the infringement seizure procedure derogates from ordinary law, the annulment of the title on which it was based entails the annulment of the seizure report” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., 8 July 2026, No. 23/03033). Having annulled the design for lack of novelty, it annulled the reports and ordered the return of the items seized. The claimant then loses the benefit of the evidence gathered at the competitor’s premises. Before seeking a seizure, the firm checks the validity of the title relied on, in particular any disclosures prior to filing. For the business subject to the seizure, it checks the regularity of the operations, compliance with the limits of the order and the bringing of the action on the merits within the period.

Article L. 521-7 of the CPI requires the court to consider separately the negative economic consequences, including loss of profit and loss suffered, the non-material harm and the profits made by the infringer, including the investment savings obtained from the infringement. At the request of the injured party, a lump sum greater than the royalties that would have been due may be awarded instead. The amounts therefore depend on the documents produced, not on a scale. In the foliage print case, the Paris judicial court awarded an interim payment of €15,000 and rejected the claim for non-material harm (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 26 January 2024, No. 22/10372). In the case of the textile motif reproduced by several companies, it set at €35,000 the economic loss resulting from unfair competition, taking into account in particular the abundance of supply and the low economic value of the motif (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 6 February 2026, No. 22/14500). The firm gathers the volumes sold, prices, margins and design expenses to present a verifiable calculation.

Under Article L. 521-3 of the CPI, the holder has five years to bring a civil action, and this period runs from the date on which they knew, or should have known, the last fact giving rise to the action. A copy still on sale several seasons after its launch can therefore remain open to challenge, the period running from the last known fact. The right relied on must still exist at the date of the facts complained of. The unregistered EU design protects only for three years, counted from its first disclosure in the Union, and a French registration that is not renewed ceases to have effect at the end of the five-year period then running. For the French title, facts after filing but before publication of the registration cannot be pursued, except those committed after a copy of the application was notified to the competitor, in accordance with Article L. 521-1 of the CPI. For each sales period, the firm therefore checks the title in force, the date on which the copy became known and the evidence available, before choosing between formal notice and action.