News Archives - dreyfus

Why should the ® symbol be used to protect and enforce a registered trade mark?

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus08/08/2026

Introduction

The ® symbol does not create trade mark rights. In France and the European Union, protection derives from the registration of the sign for specified goods and services—not from adding a symbol to packaging, a website or an advertising campaign.

This does not make the ® symbol insignificant. Where a trade mark is validly registered, we recommend using it as a legal communication tool, a commercial notice and a component of an organised evidence strategy. Judgment of the General Court Les Éditions Albert René v EUIPO (T-24/25) of May 2026, concerning the OBELIX trade mark, demonstrates that this apparently minor graphical feature may affect the assessment of how the public perceives a sign.

The symbol must nevertheless remain consistent with the underlying registration. It cannot extend protection to unregistered goods, enlarge the geographical scope of the rights or compensate for the absence of genuine use.

OBELIX Case: the ® symbol in the assessment of trade mark reputation

Facts

A Polish undertaking had obtained registration of the EU word trademark Obelix for goods in Class 13, including weapons, ammunition and explosives. Les Éditions Albert René applied for a cancellation action on the basis of its earlier OBELIX mark, relying in particular on its reputation under Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation.

The EUIPO Board of Appeal dismissed the application. It considered that most of the evidence concerned the expression “Asterix & Obelix” or the popularity of the character, without sufficiently demonstrating that the public perceived OBELIX as a trade mark with a reputation. It also ruled out a link between the marks, relying mainly on the differences between the goods, market sectors and relevant publics.

Decision

The General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision. It recalled that reputation must be assessed in the light of all relevant factors and that an accumulation of evidence may establish the necessary facts even where each item, considered individually, would be insufficient.

In particular, the Board should have considered materials on which the ® symbol appeared to the right of the word “Obelix” or “Obélix”. For members of the relevant public purchasing the goods, that presentation indicates that the term is a registered trade mark and serves as an indication of commercial origin. The Court also clarified that an earlier mark need not be used independently: where ASTERIX and OBELIX appear together and each is separately accompanied by the ® symbol, they may be perceived as two distinct trademarks.

Finally, the existence of a link between the marks required a global assessment. The Board could not focus solely on the differences between the goods and the absence of overlap between the relevant publics; it also had to examine the other relevant factors, including the exceptional distinctive character of the earlier mark.

Significance

The judgment does not itself recognise the reputation of OBELIX or declare the contested mark invalid. It annuls the Board’s decision because the evidence and the link between the marks were assessed incompletely; EUIPO must therefore reconsider those issues.

Its practical significance is nonetheless important: the ® symbol may be a relevant indicator of how the public perceives a sign. It is not autonomous or decisive proof, but it cannot be disregarded where it forms part of a coherent body of materials showing how the trade mark is commercially presented.

Consistent presentation may become relevant evidence

A trade mark is frequently used alongside product names, slogans, corporate names, characters and descriptive wording. In a dispute, it may therefore be difficult to establish whether the public perceived the relied-upon sign as an autonomous trade mark.

Placing the ® symbol immediately after the registered sign may make that function more visible. It may be relevant in opposition and cancellation proceedings based on an earlier mark; cases requiring proof of reputation or enhanced distinctiveness; trade mark counterfeiting and unfair competition actions; domain name and social media disputes; takedown requests submitted to platforms, hosting providers or online marketplaces.

The ® symbol cannot make a descriptive sign distinctive

The addition of the ® symbol does not render a descriptive, commonplace or non-distinctive sign distinctive. Nor is it sufficient, by itself, to demonstrate that the sign is being used as a trade mark, that is to say, to identify the commercial origin of goods or services.

The General Court reiterated this in its judgments in Cystus of 14 February 2017 (T-15/16), I-cosmetics of 7 July 2021 (T-205/20) and Genussländer of 28 January 2026 (T-46/25). The presence of the ® symbol constitutes only one element among others and cannot be accorded decisive weight.

The OBELIX judgment does not call this approach into question. It merely clarifies that, when placed within a coherent body of evidence, the ® symbol may contribute to showing that the public perceives the sign as a trade mark.

The ® symbol does not prove genuine use

A registration may become vulnerable to revocation where the mark has not been put to genuine use for the registered goods or services during the relevant period. The presence of the ® symbol does not establish sales volumes, duration of use, geographical coverage or genuine commercial activity.

Evidence of genuine use must address the place, time, extent and nature of the use. According to article L714-5 of the Intellectual Property Code, the registered trade mark symbol is consequently no substitute for invoices, sales records, advertising materials, dated screenshots and distribution evidence.

How should the ® symbol be used in a trade mark strategy?

The ® symbol should be used consistently and only in relation to a duly registered trade mark.

Place it immediately after the first prominent occurrence of the trade mark: TRADE MARK®.
Use a discreet presentation, either in superscript or in a reduced size.
Ensure that it clearly refers to the relevant trade mark, particularly where several signs appear together.
Harmonise its use and retain dated evidence of the trade mark’s commercial use.

In the OBELIX case, placing the ® symbol separately next to each sign contributed to their being perceived as distinct trademarks.

Conclusion

It is recommended using the ® symbol to protect and enforce a registered trade mark, provided that the validity and territorial scope of the registration have first been verified. The symbol does not generate protection. Its value lies in making the trade mark function more visible, discouraging generic or unauthorised use and supporting the consistency of evidence submitted in a dispute.

The OBELIX decision demonstrates that a graphical detail may have evidential significance when it forms part of a coherent commercial presentation.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

Can the ® symbol be used before a trade mark is registered?

A pending application is not yet a registered trade mark. The symbol should normally be adopted only once registration has been granted and only in territories where that registration is effective.

Is the ® symbol mandatory in France or the European Union?

No. Failure to use the symbol does not remove the rights arising from registration. Its use is nevertheless advisable as a means of clarifying the status of the sign and supporting a consistent trade mark protection policy.

What is the difference between ™ and ®?

The ® symbol refers to a registered trade mark. ™ generally signals that a business claims a sign as a trade mark, although registration may not have been obtained. The legal implications of both symbols vary between jurisdictions.

Where should the ® symbol be placed?

It should normally appear immediately after the registered mark, often in superscript: TRADEMARK®. On longer materials, using it after the first prominent occurrence may be sufficient, depending on the applicable brand guidelines.

Can a licensee use the ® symbol?

Yes, provided that the trademark owner has authorised such use and that the trademark is duly registered for the relevant goods, services and territories. The licence or distribution agreement should regulate this use, including the exact form of the trademark, the placement of the symbol, ownership notices and the authorised materials. This helps reduce the risk of presenting the trademark’s legal status inaccurately.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus07/08/2026

Introduction

The title of a book, film, podcast, video game or digital creation often embodies a substantial part of its commercial value. It enables audiences to identify the work, supports its promotion and may become the foundation of a franchise or merchandising programme. Nevertheless, no single legal mechanism provides absolute protection for a title.

An effective strategy normally combines copyright law where the title is original, trade mark protection where it indicates commercial origin, evidence preservation, contractual arrangements and, where appropriate, unfair competition or parasitic conduct claims.

The protection of a work by copyright law

Originality is the decisive requirement. Under Article L. 112-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, an original title is protected in the same way as the work itself. Protection arises automatically, without registration, provided that the title results from free creative choices and possesses an individual character.

Novelty alone is insufficient. A title may never have been used before and still remain commonplace, descriptive or exclusively composed of ordinary words. Conversely, an unexpected association, unusual structure, linguistic contrast or creative wordplay may demonstrate originality.

An author relying on copyright should therefore identify the specific creative choices reflected in the title. A general assertion that the title is unique or personal will rarely establish originality.

The importance of documenting the title’s creation date

Copyright exists without filing, but enforcement requires evidence of authorship and creation date. Drafts, research notes, successive versions, editorial correspondence and timestamped files should therefore be retained.

The INPI’s e-Soleau service, a formal record or deposit with a judicial officer or notary , or registration with a collecting society may strengthen evidence of prior creation. These measures do not create copyright and do not establish originality by themselves; their principal purpose is to record the existence of particular material on a specific date.

Registration of the title of a work as a trade mark

The title must indicate commercial origin. Trade mark law serves a different purpose. A trade mark does not protect a title merely because it identifies an artistic work. It protects the sign where consumers perceive it as distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others.

The sign must therefore be distinctive, available and not exclusively descriptive of the relevant goods or services. French law excludes signs that lack distinctive character or consist exclusively of indications describing characteristics of the goods or services concerned.

A title may consequently be original for copyright purposes but descriptive under trademark law. Conversely, a title that is insufficiently original for copyright protection may still be registered as a trade mark if it performs a distinctive commercial function.

Registration is particularly valuable where the title identifies a series, collection or franchise; several books, films, podcasts or games marketed under a common banner; publishing, production, entertainment or educational services; merchandising or licensed products; a creative universe intended for exploitation across several media.

A clearance search should be conducted before launch. It should cover identical and similar trademarks, existing titles, company names, trade names, domain names and earlier copyright. Article L. 711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code expressly recognises several of these rights as earlier rights capable of preventing registration.

The ANIMAL FARM and 1984 decision: what limits apply to famous titles?

Facts

On March 6, 2018, the Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell applied to register ANIMAL FARM and 1984 as European Union word trademarks. The applications covered, among other things, audiovisual and digital media, publications, printed material, games and educational and entertainment services.

Following partial refusals by the EUIPO in 2019, the appeals were referred to the Grand Board of Appeal because of divergent approaches to the registrability of famous work titles. The cases were ultimately joined.

The Grand Board’s decision

In its decision ANIMAL FARM and 1984 of May 27, 2026 (R 1719/2019-G and R 1922/2019-G), the Grand Board upheld the refusal for goods and services capable of containing, communicating, adapting or exploiting the content of the novels.

A significant part of the relevant public would immediately recognise ANIMAL FARM and 1984 as the titles of George Orwell’s works. When used for books, recordings, digital publications, games or entertainment services, the signs would therefore be understood as describing the subject matter or content offered, rather than identifying the undertaking responsible for those goods or services.

The reasoning reflects a fundamental distinction:

a work title identifies an intellectual creation;
a trademark identifies the commercial origin of goods or services.

The fame of a title is not an independent ground for refusal. However, extensive recognition may reinforce the public’s perception of the sign as the designation of a work rather than a badge of commercial origin. To overcome that perception, an applicant would need convincing evidence that consumers have been educated through use to perceive the title as a trade mark.

Practical significance

The decision does not establish a general prohibition on registering titles as trademarks. Registrability remains dependent on the goods and services concerned.

A title may be refused for books or audiovisual content while remaining registrable for sufficiently unrelated products.

The decision therefore calls on applicants to assess the position on a product-by-product and service-by-service basis. Overly broad applications should be avoided, the categories selected should correspond to a genuine intended use, and, for each category, it should be determined whether the title will be perceived as content or as a trade mark.

What strategy should be adopted to secure the title of a book, film or podcast?

Protecting a title does not rest on a single formality. It requires a combination of legal and operational measures to verify that the title is available for use, establish ownership, organise its potential protection as a trade mark, and prevent competing uses. This strategy should be implemented as early as possible, ideally before any public announcement or communication campaign. The following measures should therefore be considered:

1. Conduct a comprehensive clearance search

2. Organise evidence and ownership

3. Develop a proportionate trade mark strategy

4. Secure the digital ecosystem

5. Monitor and enforce

Conclusion

Protection should be considered before commercial disclosure. Copyright law protects original titles; trademark law protects titles that perform a distinctive commercial function; unfair competition and parasitism may address particular forms of wrongful conduct. The ANIMAL FARM and 1984 decision nevertheless confirms that even a globally famous title does not automatically function as a trade mark.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

Is the title of a work automatically protected?

It is automatically protected by copyright only if it is original. No filing is required, but evidence of authorship and creation date remains essential.

Can two books or films have the same title?

Coexistence may be possible where the earlier title is not original, no enforceable trade mark exists and the circumstances do not create confusion. The nature of the works, their audiences, presentation and reputation must be assessed.

How long is the title of a work protected?

Where it is original, the title is, in principle, protected for the same period as the work itself, until seventy years after the author’s death.

Does an e-Soleau filing protect the title?

No exclusive right results from an e-Soleau filing. It timestamps deposited material and strengthens evidence that it existed on a particular date.

How can a title be protected internationally?

Protection must be planned territory by territory through applicable copyright rules, national or regional trade mark filings, domain name registrations and contractual arrangements. An EU trade mark may cover all EU Member States, provided that no ground for refusal applies anywhere in the Union.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus07/08/2026

Introduction

To avoid copyright infringement when using artificial intelligence, a business should control three stages:

the documents and data supplied to the tool,
the instruction given to the AI system,
the content ultimately released.

In AI terminology, these are often called the “input”, “prompt” and “output”. The input is the material supplied to the system, the prompt is the instruction, and the output is the generated text, image, code, video or audio. These technical terms describe the process; they do not determine ownership or whether the result may lawfully be exploited.

Even where the provider permits commercial use of an output, it does not necessarily guarantee that the output does not reproduce a third party’s work. The business consequences are practical: withdrawal of a campaign, platform removal, redesign costs, a licence demand, infringement proceedings or reputational damage. The appropriate response is not to prohibit AI, but to apply controls proportionate to the value, audience and expected lifetime of the content.

Why can AI-generated content infringe copyright?

Under French law, Article L. 122-4 of the Intellectual Property Code prohibits the unauthorised reproduction, representation, adaptation or transformation of a protected work. “Right holders” include persons or companies to whom the author’s rights have been transferred. Copyright infringement means the unauthorised exploitation of original elements of a work. Using AI does not change the rule: a business may incur liability where it releases an output containing such elements, even if they were generated automatically.

The assessment is not limited to a similarity percentage. The Court of Justice of the European Union considers whether the creative choices of the earlier work remain recognisable in the disputed material (CJEU, December 4, 2025, Joined Cases C-580/23 and C-795/23). A shared idea, theme or general mood is usually insufficient. Risk increases where the output retains a particular composition, original wording, an individualised character, a sequence of scenes, a melody or other identifiable expressive elements.

Prompts requesting content “in the style of” an artist therefore require caution. Copyright does not generally protect an abstract style, but copying precise elements may be unlawful.

Other rights may also apply:

Moral rights protect, among other matters, the author’s name and the integrity of the work ;
Trademarks ;
Designs ;
Image or voice rights ;
Unfair competition and rules against misleading commercial practices may also be relevant.

A business review should therefore extend beyond copyright alone.

How should content and instructions supplied to an AI system be secured?

Distinguishing the two situations that may expose the user to risk

Where the user provides a protected work to the AI system, such as an image, text, video or piece of music, they must check that they are authorised to copy, modify and use it to generate new content. The fact that a document is available online does not mean that it is free to use. The risk is particularly significant where the user asks the AI to reproduce the work, retain its composition or reuse its recognisable creative elements.
Where the user enters only a prompt, without uploading any document, the generated output may nevertheless closely resemble an existing work. The user may be unaware of that work and may not have requested its reproduction, but this does not automatically eliminate the risk of infringement. Before any publication or commercial use, the business should therefore check whether the output reproduces specific and recognisable elements of an earlier creation. Where doubt remains, it is preferable to regenerate the content, modify it substantially or refrain from using it.

For a broader overview of the protection of AI-generated content, we invite you to read our article: "Copyright and Generative AI".

Exclude prompts that request or facilitate copying a copyright-protected work

The instruction should not enable copying of any protected content. A request to reproduce, continue or faithfully imitate an identified work creates a direct risk. By contrast, asking for an original analysis based on facts, without reusing the wording, structure or examples of the sources, reduces that risk. It does not eliminate it: the output must still be reviewed, compared and, where the stakes justify it, legally approved before release.

Teams should also avoid combining, without a genuine need, the name of an author or artist, the title of a work, a protected character, a trade mark and highly detailed composition instructions. Prompts, successive versions, authorised sources and human changes should be retained. This record helps demonstrate an independent creation process, speeds up internal approval and supports an effective response if a claim is made.

How should an AI-generated output be reviewed before release?

Apply a review proportionate to the commercial risk

Before external release, a business should apply a pre-publication legal review of the relevant rights before publication. The review may be light for an internal draft, but it should be strengthened for an advertising campaign, product launch, high-audience content, distributed software or material intended for use in several countries:

Identify elements that may be protected and the works, trade marks, individuals or content to which the output appears to refer;
Carry out searches suited to the format and assess whether recognisable creative choices have been reproduced, rather than relying only on an automated similarity score;
Make a documented decision: approve the output, redesign it substantially, generate a new version, obtain a licence or discard it.

Similarity software may flag a concern, but it does not replace human judgement. Changing a few words, colours or details is insufficient where the essential creative structure remains recognisable. The scope of review should reflect the audience, budget, territories, exploitation period, brand visibility and the difficulty of withdrawing the content after publication. The higher the cost of removal, the earlier clearance should occur.

Adapt the review to the relevant format

Text and software:

For text, the review should cover unusual wording, quotations, titles, highly specific structures and lengthy passages. For software, it should include licence notices, comments, characteristic code blocks and dependencies. Functional code may contain open-source components subject to attribution, share-alike or source-disclosure duties. Those duties must be compatible with the business model, cybersecurity policy and customer commitments.

Images, video and audio:

For images, reverse-image searches and visual comparisons should cover composition, characters, settings, logos and distinctive details. Video and audio reviews should examine clips, scripts, shots, lyrics, melodies, arrangements, performances and voices. Since August 2, 2026, Article 50 of the AI Act and the European Commission guidelines also impose certain transparency duties, particularly for deepfakes, meaning manipulated content that makes a person appear to have said or done something. Disclosure that content was generated or altered by AI may be mandatory, but it does not cure infringement of third-party rights.

What legal and operational governance should a business implement?

Select tools on the basis of verifiable safeguards

Before approving a tool, legal, procurement, security and business teams should review five points:

rights in inputs and outputs,
provider reuse of data,
prohibited uses,
third-party rights warranties,
indemnification.

Indemnification is the provider’s potential commitment to cover some or all costs of a claim. A commercial-use clause only governs the relationship with the provider; it is not a rights clearance and does not constitute permission from owners whose protected material may appear in the output.

Under Article 53 of the AI Act, providers of general-purpose AI models third-party rights warranties must maintain a policy for compliance with EU copyright law and publish a sufficiently detailed summary of training content. This information can support supplier selection, but it does not guarantee each output or transfer to the provider all responsibility for content released by the business.

Assign responsibility and retain evidence

An effective internal policy identifies approved tools, information that must never be supplied, uses requiring approval and the person accountable for the final decision. Projects can be classified by risk. Improving an internal draft may require limited review; a public campaign, cloned voice, code incorporated into a product or an image involving an identifiable individual justifies enhanced legal and business approval. This structure prevents low-risk projects from being delayed by controls designed for high-risk uses.

Agreements with agencies, studios and contractors should require disclosure of AI use, identification of relevant tools, compliance with licences, delivery of prompts and sources where appropriate, and warranties tailored to the intended exploitation. Internally, the approval file should include searches, licences, rejected versions, human changes and the release decision. This documentation supports a rapid decision to maintain, modify or withdraw content and, where necessary, recovery against the responsible supplier.

For further guidance on ownership and contractual arrangements, we invite you to read our articles: “How can one secure or assign rights in a work created with the assistance of artificial intelligence?” and our analysis of " Can artificial intelligence be freely used in the workplace? ".

Conclusion

Avoiding copyright infringement when using artificial intelligence does not require businesses to prevent innovation. AI should be treated like any other production tool: use authorised sources, avoid prompts that request copying, review outputs, assign human review and implement suitable contracts. The main difference is the speed of generation and limited visibility over the precise origin of some results, which makes traceability essential.

The business objective is to secure market release without imposing a full legal review on every use. A risk-based process reserves in-depth analysis for the most exposed content. Where serious doubt remains, release should be suspended until a licence has been obtained, a sufficiently different version has been produced or a targeted legal assessment has been completed.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

Can a work created with the assistance of AI be protected by copyright?

Protection may be available where the final work reflects precise human creative choices, for example in selection, composition, structure or editing. A general prompt may not be enough. The business should be able to identify the human contributions and organise ownership of the corresponding rights by contract.

Does a Creative Commons licence always permit use of a work with AI?

No. Creative Commons licences do not all permit the same uses. Attribution, commercial use, adaptations and share-alike requirements must be checked. Supplying the work to the AI system, transforming it and exploiting the output are separate acts.

Must a business tell its customers that AI was used to produce content?

This depends on the contract, sector, content and applicable rules. Disclosure may be necessary where AI use affects customer warranties, involves personal data or concerns a deepfake. Even where it is not mandatory, a clear clause reduces misunderstandings about the production method and responsibility.

How long should evidence of the AI-assisted creation process be retained?

There is no single retention period. It depends on exploitation, contractual warranties, time limits for claims and the project’s value. For a major campaign, software product or reusable asset, it is prudent to retain prompts, sources, licences, versions and approvals throughout exploitation and beyond.

Does an indemnity offered by an AI provider fully protect the business?

Rarely. Indemnities often exclude claims arising from prompts, output modifications, user-supplied content or particular territories. Recovery may also be capped. The business should compare the indemnity with the project’s actual financial exposure and confirm that the relevant uses and countries are covered.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus07/08/2026

Introduction

The French infringement seizure is one of the most effective evidentiary mechanisms available to intellectual property rights holders. Authorized by a judge and generally carried out without prior warning, it enables evidence to be collected directly at premises where allegedly infringing products, processes, documents or digital data may be found.

This powerful procedure remains strictly regulated. An imprecise application, operations exceeding the judicial authorization or failure to commence proceedings within the applicable deadline may undermine the entire enforcement strategy.

Establishment of the material facts of the infringement

Although counterfeiting may be proved by any lawful means, an infringement seizure offers a decisive advantage: it provides access to evidence located at the alleged infringer’s premises or held by an intermediary involved in manufacturing, storage or distribution.

Depending on the court order, the French enforcement officer, known as a commissaire de justice, may prepare a detailed description, take photographs, collect samples or physically seize the disputed products and related documents. Equipment and instruments used to manufacture or distribute the allegedly infringing products may also be covered.

The procedure may notably be used to protect trademarks and trade names; patents and industrial processes; registered designs; copyright works, software and databases; geographical indications and plant variety rights.

The operations must remain within the precise limits of the order. The measure does not give the claimant or its appointed expert a general power to investigate the targeted company’s activities.

Trace the origin, network and scale of the infringement

The objective is not merely to locate an infringing product. The rights holder will often need to establish the quantities manufactured, imported, stored or sold; the date on which the disputed activity began; the identity of suppliers, subcontractors and distributors; the prices charged and revenue generated.

The order may therefore authorize access to invoices, purchase orders, inventories, catalogues, commercial records and accounting documents. In digital disputes, it may cover design files, version histories, source-code repositories, technical logs or emails, provided that the searches are specifically and proportionately defined.

Verification of the rights and the initial evidence

Before filing the application, we must confirm the ownership, apparent validity and territorial scope of the asserted IP right, as well as the claimant’s standing. For a trademark, this review may include the registration, the covered goods and services, recorded assignments or licenses and, where relevant, available evidence of genuine use.

An infringement seizure should not be used to search randomly for a possible infringement. The application should be supported by sufficiently concrete indications, such as a test purchase, photograph, catalogue, online offer, invoice, witness statement, webpage capture or technical comparison.

Definition of a precise and proportionate judicial mission

The application is made without notice to the president of the competent judicial court. While this preserves the element of surprise, it also requires the claimant to present the relevant circumstances fairly and comprehensively.

The application should identify the premises concerned, the rights relied upon, the requested operations, the documents or data sought, the proposed experts and the safeguards needed to protect confidential information.

The safeguards to reduce the risk of invalidity

The first precaution to adopt is to engage proceedings within the mandatory deadline. An infringement seizure is provisional. In French trademark matters, the claimant must commence civil or criminal proceedings within 20 working days or 31 calendar days, whichever period is longer, calculated from the date of the seizure or description. Otherwise, the measure may be set aside at the request of the targeted party.

The statement of claim should therefore be prepared alongside the application rather than after the seizure report has been delivered.

Protecting trade secrets and personal data is a second precaution to adopt. The operations may reveal commercially sensitive information unrelated to the dispute, including formulas, manufacturing methods, pricing conditions, customer files or research projects. The judge may order that disputed documents be placed in provisional sequestration, preventing their immediate disclosure to the claimant.

Personal data must also be relevant and limited to what is necessary for preparing, pursuing or enforcing the legal claim. Access, retention and disclosure must remain proportionate to that purpose.

For further information, we invite you to read our article: How can infringement seizures and trade-secret protection be reconciled without exposing a company’s confidential information?

What operational method should be followed?

Before the seizure:

audit the asserted rights and preserve the initial evidence;
map the relevant premises, individuals, records and systems;
prepare the application and the main proceedings in parallel.

During the seizure:

remain strictly within the judicial authorization;
record any significant incident or statement;
isolate confidential or irrelevant documents.

After the seizure:

analyse the report and exhibits immediately;
calculate the deadline for commencing the main action;
formulate the claims for injunctions, information and damages.

Conclusion

The infringement seizure is a major legal tool in intellectual property litigation since it converts suspicions into evidence capable of being relied upon before the court. It can establish the infringement, trace manufacturing and distribution networks and measure the economic scale of the disputed activity.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

Can the procedure be carried out without warning the targeted company?

The court order is generally issued without a prior adversarial hearing to prevent evidence from being concealed, altered or destroyed.

Can computers and emails be examined?

Digital data may be described or copied where the order expressly permits it. Searches should be limited by date, file category, location or relevant keywords.

Can the targeted company refuse access to its premises?

It may make reservations, contact its legal counsel and exercise the available remedies, but it must not obstruct the lawful execution of the court order.

How does it differ from a customs detention?

An infringement seizure is a court-authorized evidence-gathering measure. A customs detention enables customs authorities to hold suspected counterfeit goods temporarily, particularly at borders.

What happens if the operations exceed the court order?

The irregular operations may be challenged and potentially invalidated. Disproportionate execution may also expose the claimant to a damages claim.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus05/08/2026

Introduction

A fictional universe cannot be protected as one indivisible asset. The strongest strategy combines copyright, trademarks, contracts and evidence measures, selecting the appropriate tool for each component of the fictional world and each intended form of exploitation.

A successful saga may encompass stories, characters, maps, invented languages, symbols, audiovisual adaptations, music, software, video games and merchandise. Each element raises a separate issue of protection, ownership and licensing. The first task is therefore to map the assets before deciding how they should be defended.

Why must the protection of a fictional universe be cumulative?

A fictional universe combines assets of different kinds No single right protects them all in the same way. The strategy should therefore begin with a map of the creative elements, ownership and planned uses, before matching each asset with the appropriate legal instrument.

Copyright protects original expression, not ideas

Under Article L. 111-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, the author of a work of the mind enjoys, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive intangible property right enforceable against all persons. Within a fictional universe, copyright may cover texts, illustrations, maps, dialogue, music, emblematic objects and sufficiently individualised characters, provided that they reflect creative choices. It does not create a monopoly over a genre, archetype or broad narrative idea. Successive versions, source files, correspondence and reliable timestamping should therefore be retained to establish priority and each contributor’s creative input.

Trademarks secure signs used in trade

Saga and character names, logos, emblems and recurring expressions may be registered where they are distinctive for the relevant goods and services. A trademark does not protect the story; it indicates commercial origin. The portfolio should reflect genuine or planned activities, including publishing, audiovisual content, gaming, events and merchandise. Under Article L. 714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code, a trademark may be revoked if it is not put to genuine use for an uninterrupted period of five years.

For a broader overview of genuine use in trademark law, we invite you to read our article: ” Genuine use and trademark litigation: burden, nature and scope of proof ? ”

How do licensing agreements govern the development of a fictional universe?

As the universe develops, rights may be divided among authors, illustrators, studios, publishers, developers, platforms and manufacturers. Its value then depends on the ability to demonstrate a clear, continuous and enforceable chain of title and then to define precisely the forms of exploitation granted to partners

Securing the chain of title before any adaptation

Before granting a licence or authorising an adaptation, the right holder in a fictional universe must be able to demonstrate that it effectively owns the necessary rights in each of its components.

Agreements entered into with the various creators must therefore identify their respective contributions and specify the rights assigned, the media, territories, duration, languages and forms of exploitation concerned. Article L. 131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code requires the scope of any assignment of rights to be precisely defined.

An incomplete chain of title may undermine an adaptation project, a commercial partnership or the development of derivative products.

For more information on the assignment of intellectual property rights, we invite you to consult our dedicated page: ” Assignment Agreement “.

Precisely define the rights granted to each licensee

Once ownership of the rights has been secured, licence agreements allow third parties to exploit certain elements of the fictional universe without transferring ownership of those elements to them.

Each licence must precisely define its scope and govern the conditions under which derivative works may be developed, in accordance with Article L. 131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code cited above. This helps prevent an adaptation from distorting the fictional universe, creating inconsistencies between different forms of exploitation, or generating uncertainty as to the ownership of any new characters, storylines or graphic elements developed by a commercial partner.

Managing fan works without weakening enforcement

Fan fiction, fan art, mods and wikis can strengthen a community, but may also reproduce protected elements or create commercial confusion. The right holder may publish guidelines specifying the uses it authorises or chooses to tolerate, particularly depending on whether they are commercial or non-commercial. Projects falling outside this framework may require individual authorisation or a licence.

The rules should be public, consistent and compatible with applicable exceptions, including parody and pastiche (Article L. 122-5, 4° of the French Intellectual Property Code).

How is artificial intelligence changing the protection of fictional universes?

Artificial intelligence raises two key issues for right holders in a fictional universe. First, texts, images, characters and other elements of that universe may be used to train AI models. Second, these tools may generate new content that reproduces or imitates certain characteristics of the universe.

Right holders must therefore act on two fronts: regulating the use of their content by AI providers and documenting the human contribution to creations produced with the assistance of AI.

For further information on how to prove that works have been used by AI, we invite you to read our article on this subject : “How could the presumption of use of cultural content by AI providers rebalance the burden of proof ?”

Reserving rights and monitoring training data

Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of April 17, 2019 permits text and data mining under certain conditions while allowing an appropriate reservation of rights. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act of June 13, 2024, also imposes transparency and copyright-compliance duties on certain providers of general-purpose AI models. Effective governance combines an inventory of online content, technical reservations, evidence of publication, monitoring and the relevant CNIL guidance.

Documenting human-led AI-assisted creation

The CSPLA report published on July 16, 16, 2026 confirms that copyright protection remains dependent on free and creative human choices that are perceptible in the resulting work. Accordingly, where an AI tool is used to develop a character, illustration or narrative, copyright protection will depend on whether such free and creative human choices can be identified in the final result.

We therefore recommend retaining the prompts, selections, iterations, edits and editorial decisions. This traceability facilitates the assertion of rights, licence negotiations and the assessment of the risk that pre-existing elements may have been reproduced.

Which practical measures provide lasting protection for a fictional universe?

Map texts, characters, settings, signs, software and individual contributions.
Date and document the creative process and each author’s participation.
Register trademarks that correspond to genuine commercial activities.
Audit agreements before any adaptation, licence or expansion into a new medium.
Regulate fan communities through a clear and proportionate policy.
Implement AI governance covering training, generated output and evidence of human input.

Conclusion

The protection of a fictional universe through intellectual property rights does not depend on a single exclusive right. It requires a coherent strategy combining copyright, trademarks, contracts, evidence and digital monitoring. The objective is not to lock away an imaginary world, but to identify the elements that are legally protectable, secure their exploitation and anticipate new forms of creation and distribution.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

How should the partial reproduction of elements from a fictional universe be addressed?

The assessment should focus on the specific similarities between the works rather than merely on their general themes. The reproduction of an individualised character, specific visual features, dialogue, settings or an original combination of elements may be unlawful even where the work as a whole has not been copied. A case-by-case analysis is required to determine whether an action based on copyright infringement, trademark infringement or unfair competition may be available.

Do all creators contributing to the same fictional universe automatically own the same rights?

No. Ownership depends on the nature of each contribution, the status of the contributors and the contracts entered into between them. Financing, commissioning or supervising a creation does not necessarily result in an automatic transfer of copyright. Agreements should therefore clearly identify the relevant works, the rights assigned, the territories, the forms of exploitation and the duration of the assignment.

Can the title of a saga or game be registered as a trademark?

Yes, provided that it is distinctive in relation to the relevant goods and services. A title that is overly descriptive, commonplace or perceived solely as identifying the content of the work may, however, encounter difficulties during registration. A clearance search should also be conducted to identify any earlier rights that could prevent the registration or use of the sign.

How can the date of creation of a character or fictional universe be proved?

Copyright protection arises automatically, without any registration requirement. However, the rights holder must be able to prove the date and content of the creation. It is therefore advisable to retain source files, drafts, correspondence and successive versions, and to use a dated means of evidence, such as a deposit with a specialised body, an e-Soleau filing or another official timestamping system or a bailiff’s report.

Can a fictional universe be protected as a whole?

As a general rule, there is no exclusive right covering an entire fictional universe as such. Protection usually results from a combination of rights applying to its individual components, including copyright in texts, illustrations, characters and settings, trademark rights in distinctive signs, design rights in certain visual elements, and potentially unfair competition law where the reproduction creates a likelihood of confusion.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus05/08/2026

One application can protect a trade mark across the 27 Member States of the European Union. That unitary reach explains why a change in EUIPO practice can alter the risk profile of a filing, opposition or revocation action across the entire EU.

In force since 1 July 2026 under Decision EX-26-09, the new edition is not legislative reform. It is, however, the operational reference used by examiners and practitioners. It requires a fresh look at clearance scope, the validity of earlier rights, specifications, procedural calendars and evidence.

The EUIPO’s official summary of the 2026 edition reveals seven changes with particular significance for trade mark portfolios.

Geographical indications: the principal methodological change

Ex officio review extending beyond comparable goods

Following legislative reforms and T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne, the EUIPO has clarified examination under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR. The Office may raise an objection beyond identical or comparable goods and related services where the available information indicates exploitation, weakening, dilution or detriment to the reputation of a geographical indication.

Clearance can no longer stop at trade mark registers. It should cover agricultural, wine, spirit, craft and industrial GIs, generic terms, the European consumer and the composition of processed goods. Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 extends this vigilance to sectors including textiles, glassware, jewellery, porcelain and furniture.

Restricting the specification is not always enough

Restricting a specification to goods complying with the relevant product specification may create a favourable presumption where the GI is used for identical goods or related services. The presumption can be rebutted. It will not cure an objection where the GI is evoked for other goods or services, or where a protected product is an ingredient, part or component of a processed product.

In opposition, Union registers and extended GIview data may make a GI easier to substantiate. The Guidelines also incorporate T-406/24, PriSecco / Prosecco, and clarify the treatment of craft and industrial GIs. For collective EUTMs consisting of a GI product-specific logo required by the relevant product specification, the Office will no longer object systematically on the basis that the sign will be perceived as a GI rather than a collective mark.

A sound European Union trade mark filing and enforcement strategy must therefore test the sign, specification, GI registers and message conveyed to the public before filing.

Geographical indications and trade marks: examination extends beyond identical goods.

Opposition: checking the right, calendar and procedure

The Court of Justice judgment of 5 February 2026 in C-337/22 P, Ape tees / DEVICE OF APE HEAD, confirms that an earlier right relied upon in opposition must remain valid until the decision. A missed renewal, cancellation or poorly documented chain of title can therefore undermine pending proceedings.

The new edition also changes the treatment of certain grounds. Where an opponent relies on a right that is ineligible under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opposition will now be rejected as inadmissible rather than unsubstantiated. This classification allows the file to be closed earlier.

A second or subsequent request for an extension no longer requires supporting evidence as a matter of course. The request must still be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances. After an initial six-month joint suspension, a further joint request triggers an automatic extension of 18 months, up to the two-year maximum, with either party able to opt out. Reduced documentary formality does not reduce the need for precise deadline management.

Comparison of signs: typography does not create a new right

For two word marks, the use of upper-case or lower-case letters no longer affects the comparison. “ORION”, “Orion” and “orion” must be treated as the same word sign. A non-stylised or slightly stylised single letter is considered to have weak inherent distinctive character.

For short signs, a structured trade mark similarity analysis should distinguish the legal identity of the sign, visual proximity and the overall impression created by its graphic elements.

Evidence and genuine use: building the file before the dispute

Part A now includes new guidance on evidence and the burden of proof. Each party remains responsible for establishing the facts relied upon through an intelligible evidential chain that can be tested by the other party.

For genuine use, the 2026 edition provides more detail on independent subcategories. Use shown for certain products will not necessarily maintain protection for an entire category. Invoices, catalogues, website captures, distribution data and advertising must be tied to the sign used, period, territory and goods concerned. Volume does not repair a missing evidential link.

Genuine use should be monitored through an evidence matrix recording, for each product, the item, date, territory, sales channel and version of the sign.

Filing, evidence of use and proceedings: three connected levels of review.

Revocation and conversion: measuring the effects before filing

A non-use revocation application may be inadmissible for abuse of law or process, but only in the exceptional circumstances identified in R 2445/2017-G, Sandra Pabst. A commercial objective or related dispute is not enough to establish abuse.

Requesting an earlier effective date of revocation does not require a legitimate interest, although that date may affect agreements, completed acts or parallel proceedings. R 1508/2019-G, Zara, also governs conversion following revocation where the applicant relies on genuine use under the law of a Member State. Any invalidity or revocation strategy before the EUIPO should therefore address national law and territorial evidence before the application is filed.

Finally, following decision R 1508/2019-G, Zara, Part E of the Guidelines clarifies the examination of a request for conversion filed after a European Union trade mark, or an international registration designating the European Union, has been revoked for non-use. Where the proprietor requests conversion for a Member State on the ground that the mark has been put to genuine use in that State, the question must be assessed under the national law of that Member State. The applicable national law and the territorially relevant evidence of use should therefore be anticipated within the conversion procedure itself, rather than, as a general rule, before any invalidity or revocation action is brought.

Collaboration between lawyers and patent and trade mark attorneys

Two complementary workstreams converging into one coherent, usable file.

The lawyer defines the legal basis, procedural strategy and relationship with national litigation. A patent and trade mark attorney who also acts as a court-appointed expert brings a technical reading of the register, specification, signs and evidence. This division of work avoids building a legally sound argument on an unusable factual record.

Composite case study, provided solely for illustration. A company has six weeks to prepare the European launch of a tableware range under a name evoking a region. The trade mark search reveals no decisive obstacle. Joint review nevertheless identifies a craft or industrial GI and a risk of evocation that the proposed restriction would not cure. The lawyer characterises the risk under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, while the attorney checks GIview, the claimed goods and available alternatives. A new name is selected before filing and the specification narrowed to the activities actually planned. The launch remains on schedule without waiting for an objection or rebranding after the campaign has started.

For the instructing lawyer or legal department, recording the analysis, sources and rejected alternatives also strengthens decision traceability and professional risk management.

Frequently asked questions

Do the 2026 Guidelines apply to pending proceedings?

They describe Office practice from 1 July 2026. The relevant act, transitional rules, applicable regulations and case law must be checked for each file. Earlier practice does not automatically create an acquired right.

What happens if the earlier right expires during an opposition?

The right relied upon must remain valid until the decision. Its status, renewal and ownership should therefore be monitored throughout proceedings, not only when the opposition is filed.

Can a restricted specification always overcome a GI objection?

No. A restriction may create a favourable presumption, but it can be rebutted. It may remain insufficient where the sign evokes the GI or a processed product incorporates the protected product.

Is a second extension granted without reasons?

No. Supporting evidence is no longer required systematically, but the request must be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances. The Office retains discretion.

How should genuine use be secured for a broad category?

Each item should be tied to a product, period, territory and the sign used. It must then be determined whether the evidence supports the entire category or only an independent subcategory.

Why instruct Dreyfus

Nathalie Dreyfus is a French patent and trade mark attorney and is included in the 2026 national list of experts approved by the French Court of Cassation, under category E-09.02 “Trade marks”. She is also listed as an expert with the Paris Court of Appeal for 2026. Her entry can be verified through the French National Council of Court Experts directory.

This combined experience in trade mark strategy and expert evidence anticipates how a specification, earlier right or item of evidence may be challenged before the Office and, if necessary, a court.

Turning the Guidelines into verifiable decisions

The 2026 edition does not overturn the principles of the European Union trade mark. It does impose greater discipline: search beyond trade marks, maintain the rights relied upon, reason procedural requests and build evidence by product and territory.

To audit the effect of these changes on a filing, opposition or existing portfolio, contact Dreyfus for an initial confidential discussion.

Dreyfus & Associés law firm partners with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

Official sources

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus01/08/2026

Introduction

The fashion industry relies almost entirely on intangible assets: a print, a silhouette, a clasp, a collection name. Unlike raw materials or manufacturing workshops, these creations cannot be locked away with a key: they must be protected legally to preserve their economic value. Fashion houses, from major luxury groups to emerging young brands, are today facing a triple pressure: the proliferation of online counterfeiting, the rise of marketplaces that multiply illicit points of sale, and new risks linked to artificial intelligence, capable of generating or reproducing designs within seconds.

Faced with this reality, no single intellectual property right is sufficient to cover every possible infringement. It is the combination of design rights, copyright and trademark law, supplemented by a monitoring and anti-counterfeiting strategy, that allows designers and fashion houses to durably secure their collections, their commercial identity and their competitive edge.

I- Which intellectual property rights protect a fashion creation?

A fashion creation can be protected by combining three complementary rights: design rights, which protect the appearance of the product; copyright, which protects original creations with no formality; and trademark law, which protects a house’s distinctive signs (name, logo, shape).

These are backed by evidence of the creation date, such as the INPI’s Soleau envelope, a notarial deposit or blockchain timestamping, which are valuable in the event of a dispute. These different layers of protection, detailed below, are cumulative and mutually reinforcing.

a) Design protection: the fashion designer’s tool of choice

A design protects the appearance of a product (its lines, contours, colours and texture) provided it meets two cumulative conditions: novelty (the design must not have been previously disclosed) and individual character (it must produce, on the informed user, a different overall impression from that produced by earlier designs).

In practice, filing is carried out with the INPI for national protection or the EUIPO for a European Union design, with protection lasting up to 25 years (5-year terms renewable four times). There is also a regime of unregistered EU designs, automatically protecting any creation disclosed within the EU for 3 years, with no formalities, a particularly useful safety net for collections with a short life cycle.

The European framework has just been thoroughly modernised by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823, which entered into application on 1 May 2025: the definition of “product” now extends to digital creations, movement and animation are taken into account, a new symbol has been introduced, and rights now extend to goods in transit within EU territory. The Dreyfus firm details all of these developments and their strategic implications for rights holders in its full guide to the 2025 EU design reform as well as in its article on the . For the official text, see Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 on EUR-Lex.

b) Copyright: automatic protection that is difficult to prove

Copyright protects fashion creations from the moment they are created, with no filing or formalities required, provided they are original, meaning they bear the imprint of their author’s personality (Cofemel case law, CJEU, 12 September 2019). This absence of formalism is both a strength and a weakness: in the event of a dispute, it is up to the creator to prove the date and authorship of their creation.

Several tools help establish this proof: the INPI’s Soleau envelope, deposit with a notary or bailiff, or, increasingly, blockchain timestamping. On this last point, French case law is beginning to accept this form of digital evidence, as explained by the Dreyfus firm in its analysis of the Marseille Judicial Court’s ruling of 20 March 2025: «Is blockchain evidence recognised in copyright matters?»

c) Trademarks: protecting a fashion house’s commercial identity

Trademark law protects a house’s distinctive signs, in several cumulative forms:

a word mark (the house’s name or a collection’s name);
a logo (semi-figurative mark);
a figurative mark (a pattern, a symbol);
a three-dimensional mark, which protects the very shape of a product or one of its distinctive elements.

This last category is subject to strict examination by trademark offices, to avoid granting a monopoly over a purely functional shape to the detriment of competition. Yet it enabled Hermès to secure a resounding victory: in its ruling of 7 February 2025 (No. RG 22/09210), the Paris Judicial Court held that the Kelly and Birkin bags were protected both by copyright (on account of their originality) and by the three-dimensional trademark covering their clasp and padlock, ruling against a company marketing bags and an NFT reproducing these features. The Dreyfus firm provides a detailed analysis in «Decision of the Paris Judicial Court on the Protection of the Iconic Kelly and Birkin Bags »; an official summary of the decision is also available on the EUIPO case-law database.

II- What are the main legal risks facing fashion brands?

a) Online counterfeiting and marketplaces

Marketplaces have multiplied sales channels, but also the areas of vulnerability for rights holders: counterfeit bags, cosmetics, watches and clothing are offered there at slashed prices, sometimes via “ready-to-use kits” including graphic branding, fake customer reviews and copied product photos. Social media amplifies this phenomenon by serving as both a showcase and a direct sales channel. The Dreyfus firm details the reporting mechanisms, the obligations imposed on platforms under the DSA and the DMA, and the available monitoring strategies in «Strengthening Intellectual Property rights protection against counterfeiting on marketplaces» and in «Trademark protection in the digital age: key issues and best practices».

The role of platform operators nevertheless remains governed by a nuanced body of European case law: in Coty v. Amazon (CJEU, 2 April 2020, C-567/18), the CJEU held that a mere warehouse keeper who does not itself use the sign at issue does not incur liability for trademark infringement, unless it had knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods stored.

b) “Dupes” and copies inspired by luxury products

The phenomenon of “dupes” (low-cost imitations that openly borrow the visual codes of a luxury product without directly reproducing the trademark) blurs the line between legitimate inspiration and counterfeiting. Widely popularized on social media, these products exploit legal grey areas: they often escape a classic trademark infringement action, forcing rights holders to combine copyright, design rights and actions for unfair competition and free-riding (parasitisme). The Dreyfus firm examines this phenomenon in «Legal challenges of product similarity in the fashion industry», as well as recent case-law developments on the subject in «Unfair Competition and Parasitism: Developments in Case Law».

A more sophisticated variant, referred to as “Pingti,” reproduces the quality, material and finish of a luxury product with no visible logo whatsoever, rendering a trademark infringement claim ineffective and forcing rights holders to turn to design rights, copyright or unfair competition instead. See «The Rise of Pingti: Discreet luxury counterfeiting».

c) Upcycling and personalisation: an emerging legal issue

Upcycling, the creative transformation of authentic, used products into new value-added items, raises an unprecedented question: to what extent can the exhaustion of rights doctrine (which allows the resale of a genuine product once placed on the market with the rights holder’s consent) cover a transformative reuse?

Two recent rulings from the Paris Judicial Court provide decisive guidance:

Paris Judicial Court, 10 April 2025, No. 22/10720 (Hermès v. Maison R&C / Atelier R&C): a designer was marketing denim jackets incorporating patches cut from authentic Hermès scarves purchased second-hand. The court held that transforming the scarves into jackets created a product distinct from the one originally placed on the market, ruling out the application of exhaustion of rights, and found the designer liable for copyright and trademark infringement as well as unfair competition and free-riding, awarding tens of thousands of euros in damages. The Dreyfus firm provides a full analysis in « Upcycling of jackets made from Hermès second-hand scarfs» .
Paris Judicial Court, 12 February 2025, No. 22/09315 (Rolex v. Skeleton Concept):applying similar reasoning, the court held that Rolex watches which had undergone substantial modifications could no longer be regarded as the products originally placed on the market by the trademark owner, since the essential function of guaranteeing origin was undermined once the modified product risked being attributed, in its altered state, to the trademark owner itself.

These rulings converge on a single principle: exhaustion of rights protects the resale of a genuine product, but does not extend to the marketing of a new product resulting from its transformation, a critical point of vigilance for players in sustainable fashion and the second-hand market.

III- What strategy should be adopted to effectively protect a fashion brand?

a) Building a protection strategy from the outset of creation

Essential checklist:

File designs before any public communication, including on social media and in showrooms;
Register strategic trademarks (word, figurative, three-dimensional) with the INPI, the EUIPO, or through the Madrid System for international protection;
Secure clear rights assignment clauses in contracts with in-house and external designers, covering ownership and exploitation of the creations;
Keep dated proof of creation (Soleau envelope, notarized deposit, or blockchain timestamping).

The Dreyfus firm details filing criteria and portfolio strategies in «Design & Model Law: What you need to know» and presents the sector’s general framework in «Fashion law in France: A strategic legal framework for the luxury industry».

b) Combining legal protection with an anti-counterfeiting strategy

Beyond filing, effectively defending a fashion brand rests on three complementary levers:

monitoring marketplaces and social media, to quickly detect infringing listings;
customs actions, through an application for intervention (AFA), which allows counterfeit goods to be intercepted at the EU’s borders under Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013, see «Customs Surveillance in Intellectual Property Matters »;
judicial proceedings (infringement seizure, infringement action, interim relief) as well as opposition and invalidity proceedings before the INPI or the EUIPO, to challenge conflicting filings upstream. See «When should you seek the assistance of a trademark law expert: distinctive signs, infringement and defense strategies? » and, for enforcement procedures in English, «Counterfeiting: opposition procedures, formal notice».

Conclusion

Protecting fashion creations in France requires a combined approach, bringing together design rights, copyright and trademark law, while anticipating the specific risks posed by online counterfeiting, dupes and upcycling. In an environment where digital technologies and artificial intelligence are accelerating the spread (and the copying) of creations, only a proactive intellectual property strategy, built in from the design stage of a collection, allows designers and fashion houses to durably preserve the value of their intangible assets.

Dreyfus law firm supports its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters, offering tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the full protection of their creations. The Dreyfus firm partners with a worldwide network of specialized intellectual property lawyers. Feel free to contact Dreyfus law firm for strategic support tailored to your brand.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Should a design be filed before presenting a collection? Yes. The novelty requirement means a design must be filed before any public disclosure, otherwise the creator destroys the novelty of their own creation (subject to the 12-month grace period).

2. What is the difference between unfair competition and counterfeiting in the fashion sector? Counterfeiting penalises the unauthorised reproduction of a registered or protected intellectual property right (trademark, design, copyright), whereas unfair competition and free-riding penalise wrongful conduct independent of any exclusive right, such as copying a competitor’s visual codes to unduly benefit from its reputation.

3. Does an independent designer have the same protections as a major fashion house? Yes, intellectual property rights apply in the same way regardless of a company’s size; only the resources devoted to monitoring and enforcing those rights typically differ between an independent designer and a large group.

4. How does artificial intelligence complicate the protection of fashion creations? It makes it easier to generate and reproduce designs almost instantly, which complicates the detection of online counterfeiting and requires fashion houses to strengthen their digital monitoring and keep dated proof of authorship.

5. How can a luxury brand be protected internationally? Through the Madrid System (WIPO) for simplified international filing, supplemented by targeted national filings in key development and commercialization markets, together with coordinated worldwide customs and digital monitoring.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Legal sources

Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823 on designs, applicable from 1 May 2025 (EUR-Lex).
Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.
CJEU, 2 April 2020, Coty v. Amazon, C-567/18.
Paris Judicial Court, 7 February 2025, No. RG 22/09210, Hermès (Kelly and Birkin bags); EUIPO; INPI PIBD.
Paris Judicial Court, 10 April 2025, No. 22/10720, Hermès v. Maison R&C (Legifrance).
Paris Judicial Court, 12 February 2025, No. 22/09315, Rolex v. Skeleton Concept.
French Intellectual Property Code; INPI (inpi.fr); EUIPO (euipo.europa.eu); Madrid System (WIPO).

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus31/07/2026

Introduction

French customs authorities are central to anti-counterfeiting enforcement because they can stop goods before they reach the market, control flows throughout the country and help identify organised supply chains. In 2025, French customs removed 20.22 million counterfeit articles from the market. This figure confirms that an effective brand-protection strategy cannot rely solely on online monitoring or litigation; it must also establish an operational relationship with customs authorities.

For rights holders, the key tool is the customs application for action. Free of charge and preventive in nature, it enables customs authorities to act at the borders of the European Union, particularly in ports, airports, freight hubs and postal sorting centres, as well as within the national territory during the transport, storage or circulation of goods. It allows rights holders to provide customs officers with the information needed to identify genuine products, detect irregularities and promptly contact the appropriate person when a suspicious shipment is intercepted.

Why are customs authorities central to anti-counterfeiting enforcement?

Controls at every stage of the physical flow

Customs action is not limited to the external border. Officers may control goods at import, export, circulation, possession and after customs clearance, that is, once the goods have completed customs formalities and have been authorised to enter or circulate within the territory. Ports, airports, roads, warehouses, postal traffic and express freight are covered by specialised units. French customs also relies on intelligence, dedicated investigation services and Cyberdouane to connect illegal online offers with the corresponding physical flow of goods.

A combined european and french legal framework

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of June 12, 2013 governs customs enforcement for goods under customs supervision, particularly when they enter the customs territory of the European Union.
The French Intellectual Property Code (for example, Article L. 716-8 of the French Intellectual Property Code, concerning trademark law) complements this framework for goods already cleared and circulating in France. The two mechanisms are complementary and should be combined where a business faces both import risks and domestic distribution.

For a broader overview of how customs surveillance is organised, the powers available to customs officers and cooperation between national, European and international authorities, we invite you to read our article ‘Combating counterfeiting: organizing european customs surveillance’.

How can rights holders activate effective customs surveillance?

File the appropriate application and keep it current

To enable customs authorities to monitor and detain suspicious goods, the rights holder must file an application for action. This application may be national, allowing French customs authorities to act in France only, or may cover several EU Member States where the right relied upon permits it, for example in the case of an EU trademark.

An application at Union level enables the rights holder to request action by the customs authorities of several Member States.

The application is free of charge, valid for one year and renewable. EU applications are filed through the IP Enforcement Portal (IPEP) and require an EORI number, which is an identification number used in dealings with EU customs authorities. The information provided must be precise and regularly updated, as customs officers use it to recognise genuine products and identify counterfeit goods.

Provide identification criteria that officers can use immediately

A strong application should specify:

the protected rights, their owners and the relevant goods;
visible features of genuine products, including labels, serial numbers, batch codes, packaging and security devices;
known fraud indicators, countries of origin, routes and high-risk operators;
authorised distribution channels and immediately available legal and technical contacts;
the preferred approach to small consignments and simplified destruction.

An application containing information that is too general does not enable customs officers to identify suspicious goods effectively. By contrast, illustrated product sheets, updated intelligence and a documented internal response protocol enable officers to distinguish a meaningful anomaly from an ordinary commercial variation.

For a detailed overview of the procedure for filing an application for action, the rights covered and the best practices that make customs surveillance fully operational, we invite you to read our article “Customs surveillance in intellectual property matters”.

What happens after suspected goods are detained?

A deliberately short response window

When a parcel or consignment appears to contain counterfeit goods, customs authorities may temporarily block its release or circulation in order to carry out checks.

If the rights holder has already filed an application for action, the goods may generally be detained for ten working days, or three working days if they are perishable. During this period, the rights holder must review the information provided by customs, confirm whether the goods are counterfeit and decide what action should be taken.

If no application has been filed in advance, customs may nevertheless act on their own initiative and detain the goods for four working days. The rights holder must then promptly file an application for action so that the procedure can continue.

Because these deadlines are very short, the company must be able to identify suspicious goods quickly, gather evidence of the infringement and decide whether to request their destruction or initiate legal proceedings.

Assessment, simplified destruction or court proceedings

The rights holder must confirm the infringement on the basis of photographs, data or samples supplied by customs. Where the statutory conditions are met and the declarant or holder agrees to destruction, or does not object within the applicable period, the goods may be destroyed under customs supervision. If the detention is challenged, judicial measures may be required. A customs detention is a temporary verification measure; a customs seizure follows the establishment of a customs offence.

To explore the distinction between customs detention and seizure, the applicable time limits, simplified destruction and possible court proceedings, we invite you to read our article “Seizure and customs detention: how to navigate the process”.

How should customs enforcement fit into an anti-counterfeiting strategy?

Build the internal process before the first alert

We recommend implementing a simple, documented decision chain:

appoint a primary contact and a substitute who remain available during sensitive periods;
prepare assessment templates and authentication criteria for each product family;
centralise registrations, powers of attorney, certificates and relevant evidence of use;
define in advance the thresholds for destruction, settlement and litigation;
feed information from customs alerts back into marketplace, domain-name and social-media monitoring.

Measure effectiveness beyond the number of seized articles

The number of intercepted products is not enough, on its own, to assess the effectiveness of customs surveillance. The information collected during each detention should also be reviewed, including the origin of the goods, transit countries, transport methods, sellers involved and the outcome of the case.

This information helps identify counterfeiting routes, detect recurring risks and better target future enforcement action.

Conclusion: turning customs surveillance into a strategic advantage

The role of French customs in the fight against counterfeiting extends far beyond isolated product interceptions. It forms part of a broader strategy to protect intangible assets, safeguard consumers and dismantle illegal networks. A precise application for action, responsive contacts and systematic use of customs intelligence allow businesses to intervene before counterfeit goods enter legitimate channels.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

Which application should be chosen: a national application or an application at Union level ?

The choice depends on the territory through which the goods are likely to circulate and on the territorial scope of the rights relied upon. A national application may be sufficient where the risk is limited to France. An application at Union level is more appropriate where the goods may transit through several Member States or where the rights holder owns, for example, an EU trademark.

How should a company organise itself when it receives a customs alert ?

The company must be able to identify immediately the person responsible for the matter, verify whether the goods are genuine and respond within the deadline set by customs.

Is the simplified destruction procedure suitable for every detention ?

This procedure often allows the goods to be destroyed without immediately initiating court proceedings. It nevertheless depends on several conditions, including the position taken by the declarant or the holder of the goods. If the destruction is opposed, the authenticity of the goods is disputed or the matter is particularly significant, court proceedings may become necessary.

Can customs authorities act against counterfeit goods sent in small parcels ?

Postal and express consignments may also be inspected, even where they contain only a small number of products. The growth of online shopping has increased the importance of these controls. A specific procedure may apply to small consignments where the rights holder has agreed to its use in the application for action.

Can information collected during a detention be used in other enforcement actions ?

Information relating to the sender, recipient, country of origin, carrier or shipping method may help identify repeat sellers or distribution networks. It may then be used to guide online monitoring, prepare a new complaint or strengthen civil, criminal or customs enforcement proceedings.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus29/07/2026

Introduction

After years of legislative preparation, the European Union has completed the overhaul of its design protection framework. Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823, which entered into force on 8 December 2024, roll out the reform in two phases: a first phase applicable since 1 May 2025, and a second, procedurally more substantial phase that takes effect on 1 July 2026. Member States have until 9 December 2027 to transpose the Directive into national law. For any business that files, manages or enforces designs in Europe, these deadlines call for early preparation.

I- Modernized representation for digital and animated designs

The reform adapts the concept of a design to digital and interactive products. Static, dynamic and animated representations are now expressly permitted, opening protection to user interfaces, icons, transitions and animations.

Icons, GUIs and transitions within an application can be represented through an animated sequence (video file or computer modelling).
The representation must define the claimed protection clearly and precisely — the scope of the right is strictly limited to what is shown in the application.
The title of the design and any descriptive text provided by the applicant do not affect the scope of protection.

II- A clarified scope of protection

The reform confirms that only the visual representation on file determines the scope of the right. Descriptive text or disclaimers submitted by the applicant neither narrow nor widen protection, which strengthens legal certainty and consistency across national offices and the EUIPO.

III- A revised fee structure to plan for

The fee structure has been substantially reworked. The publication fee is abolished and absorbed into a single flat registration fee. In exchange, renewal fees increase, particularly for international registrations under the Hague Agreement.

Fee item	Change
Filing fee (1st design)	Flat €350, publication included
Additional designs (2nd–10th)	€125 per design
Additional designs (11th onward)	€125 per design (up from €50)
Invalidity and appeal fees	Reduced
Formal fees (transfers, file inspection)	Some fees eliminated

Practical tip: for a multiple application, staying under ten designs keeps the per-design cost lower.

IV- Spare parts: the repair clause made permanent

The repair clause, previously transitional, becomes permanent. Component parts of a complex product (bumpers, printer trays, casings…) used solely to restore the product’s original appearance fall outside design protection.

This measure primarily targets the automotive spare-parts market, historically a source of litigation between component makers and rights holders.
It applies only to parts whose function is to restore the original appearance — not to spare parts generally.

V- New grounds for invalidity linked to cultural heritage

Under Article 14(2) of the Directive, a design may now be declared invalid if it reproduces or copies elements of cultural heritage of national interest to a Member State, or makes abusive use of symbols or emblems of particular public interest.

VI- Stronger tools against counterfeit goods in transit

Rights holders will be able to have infringing goods seized while merely in transit through EU territory, even where those goods are not intended for the EU market. This closes a loophole long exploited by counterfeiting networks routing goods through European ports and airports.

VII- A new optional “D” symbol

Mirroring the ® symbol for trademarks, rights holders will be able to display an optional “D” symbol on their products to indicate registered design protection.

VIII- Simplified filing through the EUIPO

Filing through national offices is no longer possible: all EU design applications must go through the EUIPO.
The Locarno-class unity requirement is abolished: a single application can combine designs from different classes.
A multiple application can now include up to 50 designs.

Conclusion

The reform of the European Union design system goes far beyond a simple change in terminology. With the modernization of design representations, a revised fee structure, the permanent adoption of the repair clause, and stronger measures to combat counterfeit goods in transit, 1 July 2026 marks a significant milestone for any business seeking to protect the appearance of its products in Europe. Anticipating these changes today will help avoid unexpected challenges and ensure the long-term security of your design portfolio.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored legal advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure the full protection of their intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus Law Firm is part of a global network of intellectual property attorneys, allowing it to provide coordinated IP protection, enforcement, and strategic legal support for clients worldwide.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Are designs that were already registered affected by the reform?

Yes. Designs registered before the reform entered into force remain valid until their expiration. However, certain new procedural rules, such as those relating to renewals or the administration of rights, may apply to actions taken after the new provisions came into effect.

2. Does this reform only apply to large companies?

No. The new rules apply to all design rights holders, including large companies, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), startups, and independent creators. Anyone seeking to protect the appearance of a product within the European Union may be affected by these changes.

3. How can I determine whether a design is eligible for protection?

To qualify for protection, a design must generally be new and possess individual character compared to existing designs. Conducting a prior art search and obtaining a legal assessment beforehand can help determine whether a design is likely to meet these requirements.

4. Is it possible to protect the same design outside the European Union?

Yes. Depending on a company’s business strategy, protection can be extended to other countries through national filings or through an international registration, such as under the Hague System, where available.

5. Why is it advisable to work with an intellectual property professional when filing a design application?

An intellectual property professional can help develop the most effective protection strategy, ensure that the application complies with legal requirements, and identify potential risks related to invalidity or infringement. Professional guidance can ultimately strengthen both the legal protection and commercial value of a design.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus28/07/2026

Introduction

Since June 19, 2026, any trader entering into a distance contract with a consumer through an online interface must provide the consumer with a free withdrawal function.

Compliance requires more than placing a button on a website. The journey must be easy to locate and use, include an explicit confirmation step, generate an acknowledgement on a durable medium and connect with refund and return processes. Legal, digital, finance, logistics and data-protection teams therefore need to work from a single operational framework.

The reform originates in Directive (EU) 2023/2673, implemented in France through Order No. 2026-2 of January 5, 2026 and Decree No. 2026-3. Consumers generally have 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract without having to give any reason. This period usually runs from the date the goods are received or, in the case of services, from the date the contract is concluded. In France, the 14-day withdrawal period was introduced more broadly by the Hamon Law of March 17, 2014, implementing Directive 2011/83/EU, and applies to contracts concluded from June 13, 2014 onwards.

An obligation extending beyond financial services

Although the European reform was adopted in the context of distance financial services, the French implementing measures also amended the general rules governing distance contracts. In practice, the obligation covers B2C contracts concluded through e-commerce websites, mobile applications, marketplaces and other online interfaces whenever a statutory withdrawal right exists. Sales of goods, services, subscriptions and digital products may therefore fall within scope.

The new function does not create a withdrawal right for contracts that are legally excluded. Bespoke goods, certain perishable products, services fully performed under the statutory conditions and some digital content supplied immediately may qualify for an exception. Businesses should therefore map their offers and avoid applying a single technical rule to every product without legal qualification.

The withdrawal function must be as easy to find as it is to use

A visible, permanent and unambiguous entry point

The French Consumer Code requires free, easy, direct and permanent access throughout the applicable period. The entry point must be labelled “Withdraw from the contract here” or use similarly unambiguous wording. A discreet reference in the terms and conditions, a generic contact page or a journey that requires repeated searches is unlikely to meet the accessibility standard.

Before the contract is concluded, the consumer must also be informed of the existence and location of the function. The terms and conditions, help pages, order confirmation and customer account should therefore describe the same journey that is actually available online.

A structured declaration and a time-stamped confirmation

The form must allow the consumer to provide or confirm their first and last name, information identifying the relevant contract and the electronic means through which the acknowledgement should be received. A second action, labelled “Confirm withdrawal” or in equivalent unambiguous terms, must complete the submission. The trader must then send an acknowledgement within a reasonable time on paper or another durable medium, including the declaration and the date and time of submission. These requirements are set out in Article D. 221-5 of the French Consumer Code.

How should businesses organise operational compliance?

1. Map customer journeys and assign responsibilities

Each contracting channel, product category, applicable period and exception should be documented. Where a marketplace is involved, the parties must determine who displays the function, receives the request, issues the acknowledgement and retains the evidence. These responsibilities should match the agreements between the seller, platform, payment provider and logistics operator.

2. Build a genuinely functional UX and technical workflow

IT teams should integrate the function into both front-end and back-end systems:

appropriate authentication,
order-data retrieval,
acknowledgement generation,
date-and-time logging,
CRM transmission and
internal workflow initiation.

Testing should cover mobile devices, applications, guest checkouts, multi-item orders, incorrect email addresses and peak traffic. A visible function that fails in practice remains non-compliant.

3. Connect withdrawal requests with refunds and returns

For sales of goods, reimbursement must generally be made within 14 days after the trader is informed, subject to the right to defer payment until the goods are received or evidence of dispatch is provided. Finance and customer-service teams should verify that e-commerce payment service providers or comparable operators can process refunds through the appropriate payment method. Logistics systems must identify the return, update inventory and match the product with the withdrawal declaration.

4. Embed data protection and compliance evidence

The form processes personal data. The data-minimisation principle requires fields to be limited to what is necessary. Privacy information must be concise and accessible, security must be built into the design, and retention periods must reflect operational and evidentiary needs. Businesses should retain dated screenshots, release versions, technical logs, acknowledgements and refund records, while restricting internal access to those who need it.

What are the consequences of non-compliance?

Failure to provide a compliant function falls within the rules governing the exercise of the withdrawal right. Article L. 242-13 of the French Consumer Code provides for an administrative fine of up to EUR 15,000 for an individual and EUR 75,000 for a legal entity. Businesses may also face DGCCRF investigations, individual claims, refund disputes and loss of customer trust.

A missing function should be distinguished from a failure to inform the consumer of the withdrawal right. The latter may extend the consumer’s withdrawal period. A purely visual implementation, without updated pre-contractual information or evidence that the journey works, is therefore insufficient.

Conclusion

The online withdrawal function is now a mandatory component of the B2C contracting journey. Businesses should verify the legal scope, button accessibility, form fields, confirmation step, acknowledgement, refunds, returns and evidence trail as a single process. Organisations that deployed a solution before the deadline should continue to test, audit and document its actual operation.

For further information, we invite you to consult our article on the right of withdrawal applicable to sales made through social media, as well as our page dedicated to website and e-commerce law.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

Does the online withdrawal function apply only to financial services?

The French implementing measures cover the general regime for distance contracts concluded through online interfaces and also contain specific provisions for financial services. Businesses should therefore review all B2C journeys, not only banking and insurance products.

Must consumers use the online function to withdraw?

The new journey facilitates withdrawal without removing other lawful methods of expressing an unambiguous decision, including a letter, email or standard form. Internal procedures should therefore be capable of handling several channels.

How should products excluded from the withdrawal right be handled?

The journey should reflect the legal classification of the contract. Any exception must be verified, clearly disclosed to the consumer and correctly configured in the interface, without extending the statutory exclusions.

How long must the function remain available?

It must remain accessible throughout the period applicable to the relevant contract. The system should calculate the period from the correct trigger: receipt of goods, conclusion of a service contract or any applicable special regime.

What evidence should be retained to demonstrate compliance?

A useful file includes journey versions, time-stamped screenshots, functional specifications, test results, submission logs, acknowledgements, refund evidence and internal procedures. Retention must remain proportionate and secure.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.