News

Introduction

Cancellation and revocation proceedings can remove all or part of an existing trademark registration, but they address different defects and operate at different stages in the life of the trademark. Invalidity challenges whether the trademark should ever have been registered. Revocation concerns events arising after registration, primarily the absence of genuine use.

Should the trademark be declared invalid or revoked?

Invalidity challenges the original validity of the registration

An invalidity application argues that the trademark should not have been registered. It may rely on absolute grounds, which relate to the intrinsic characteristics of the sign, or relative grounds, which arise from a conflict with an earlier right.

Absolute grounds may include:

• lack of distinctive character;
• an exclusively descriptive or customary sign;
• a deceptive trademark;
• a sign contrary to public policy;
• bad faith at the filing date.

Any natural or legal person may rely on an absolute ground without owning an earlier right. Relative invalidity, however, may be requested only by the owner or authorised beneficiary of the right relied upon, such as an earlier trademark, corporate name, trade name, domain name or other protected sign.

Invalidity may be total or limited to certain goods and services. Where it is granted, its effect is generally retroactive: for the affected goods or services, the registration is treated as though it had never produced legal effects.

Revocation addresses events occurring after registration

Revocation does not challenge the trademark’s validity at the filing date. It sanctions circumstances that arose during the life of the registration.

The most common ground is the absence of genuine use of the trademark for an uninterrupted period of five years. Revocation may also be sought where the trademark has become the customary name for the relevant goods or services, or where the way in which it is used has become misleading.

Any person may apply for revocation. In non-use proceedings, the trademark owner bears the burden of proving genuine use for the contested goods and services. Evidence may take any form, but it must allow the authority to assess the commercial reality of the use as a whole.

Revocation normally takes effect on the filing date of the application, although an earlier date may be selected where the ground for revocation had already arisen.

Should the application be filed with the INPI or the judicial court?

The INPI has primary jurisdiction over standalone applications

Since April 1, 2020, most standalone invalidity and revocation applications against French trademarks have fallen within the jurisdiction of the INPI. The proceedings are conducted electronically through online portal.

The INPI may consider invalidity based on absolute grounds; relative invalidity falling within the statutory scope of its jurisdiction; revocation for non-use; revocation based on a trademark becoming generic or misleading.

Its jurisdiction covers French trademarks and international registrations designating France. An EU trademark must be challenged before the EUIPO rather than the INPI.

The judicial court retains jurisdiction over connected disputes

The Judicial Court remains competent where invalidity or revocation is raised:

• as a counterclaim in trademark infringement proceedings;
• in connection with another claim already pending before the court;
• on the basis of an earlier right outside the INPI’s administrative jurisdiction;
• in certain cases where evidentiary or interim measures have already been initiated.

A general relationship between two disputes is not sufficient. The claims must be closely connected and involve the same parties.

How to prepare an admissible and persuasive application?

An application cannot merely identify a registration and refer to a broad legal ground. It should specify:

• the contested trademark and its owner;
• the relevant goods and services;
• every legal ground relied upon;
• the earlier rights asserted;
• the facts establishing the alleged defect or conflict;
• the precise scope of the requested sanction.

The applicant’s arguments, claims and evidence must be organised in a single, structured statement. Although some formal defects may be remedied, the possibility of correction should never be used as a substitute for proper preparation. The workshop identified a correlation between the absence of professional representation and the increase in inadmissible applications.

Where both invalidity and revocation are sought against the same registration, two separate applications must be filed.

Invalidity and revocation proceedings before the INPI

The proceedings begin with an electronic filing. Once admissibility has been reviewed, the trademark owner generally has two months to submit a response. Further adversarial exchanges may follow within the limits set by the procedural rules. An oral hearing may be arranged at a party’s request or on the INPI’s initiative.

Since July 2, 2026, the statutory period within which the INPI must issue its decision after the investigation phase closes has increased from three to four months, including for proceedings already pending on that date. This period must be distinguished from the overall duration of the case, which includes written submissions and any suspension.

Official fees, recoverable costs and appeals

The official filing fee is EUR 600, with an additional EUR 150 for each earlier right relied upon beyond the first. Each party normally bears its own expenses, but a party may request that the INPI order its opponent to contribute to certain procedural costs.

The INPI addresses costs in 55% of its decisions and grants at least part of the requested amount in 68% of cases where costs are claimed. Where bad faith is established, the Institute may award the maximum available amount.

The decision is recorded in the French National Trademark Register and may be challenged before the territorially competent Court of Appeal. Any appeal strategy should therefore be assessed immediately after notification, based on the reasoning adopted and the arguments and evidence already submitted.

Conclusion

Trademark invalidity and revocation proceedings are now central tools for managing, clearing and defending trademark portfolios. Their accessibility should not obscure their technical nature. The legal ground, jurisdiction, scope of the earlier rights and quality of the supporting evidence must all be assessed before proceedings are initiated.

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

What is the difference between invalidity and revocation?

Invalidity addresses a defect existing when the trademark was filed. Revocation concerns a later event, such as the absence of genuine use for five years. Invalidity generally has retroactive effect, whereas revocation normally takes effect from the filing date of the revocation application or from an established earlier date.

Who must prove genuine use?

In non-use revocation proceedings, the contested trademark owner bears the burden of proving genuine use. The evidence must establish real, public and external commercial use for the relevant goods and services.

Can an INPI decision be appealed?

Yes. INPI decisions on invalidity and revocation applications may be challenged before the competent Court of Appeal. The applicable time limit and procedural requirements should be reviewed immediately upon notification.

Can a trade mark be invalidated or revoked only in respect of certain goods or services?

Yes. Invalidity and revocation may concern only part of the goods and services covered by the registration where the ground relied upon does not affect all of them in the same way.

What happens to licence agreements or assignments relating to a trademark that has been declared invalid?

Since invalidity takes effect retroactively, it retrospectively undermines all legal transactions entered into in reliance on the trademark. The parties may, however, depending on the circumstances, invoke the doctrine of apparent right or the general rules of contract law governing termination and restitution.

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.

Introduction

Since August 2, 2026, the use of artificial intelligence in advertising must be assessed at two levels:

• The first concerns transparency obligation relating to the use of AI, as provided for in Article 50 of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, certain provisions of which entered into application on that date ;
• The second covers the rules that already apply to commercial communications, including the accuracy of claims, intellectual property, image rights, data protection and contractual responsibility.

However, not every use of AI needs to be disclosed to the public. The transparency obligation primarily applies to content constituting deepfakes, as well as to certain texts concerning matters of public interest. Standard retouching, background removal or preparatory assistance therefore do not automatically trigger a disclosure requirement. Conversely, the absence of such a disclosure never exempts the advertiser from complying with the rules governing misleading commercial practices or with third-party rights.

When must advertising using AI be disclosed?

Article 50 distinguishes providers from deployers

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 allocates duties between the provider of an AI system and its deployer.

• A provider develops the system or markets it under its own name. It must enable the identification of synthetic output through machine-readable marking, except where the system merely performs standard editing or does not substantially alter the input data or its meaning.
• A deployer uses the system under its authority for professional purposes. A trademark, advertising agency or production company may therefore be a deployer. Employees acting under a company’s control are not separate deployers.

Contractual allocation remains important, but it cannot override the legal qualification resulting from the parties’ actual control over the advertising process.

Advertising deepfakes require visible disclosure

Under the European Commission Guidelines published on July 20, 2026, deployers must disclose AI-generated or manipulated image, audio or video content that resembles an existing person, object, place, entity or event and could falsely appear authentic or truthful. An intention to deceive is not the sole consideration. The assessment also reflects the level of resemblance, the message conveyed, the deployment context and the expectations of the audience.

A wholly fictional avatar that does not resemble an existing individual is therefore not automatically a deepfake under the statutory definition. Disclosure may nevertheless be required under consumer law or advertising self-regulatory rules where the avatar is presented as a genuine customer, expert or witness and is capable of misleading the audience.

The notice must be perceivable upon first exposure

Technical marking embedded by the provider is not, in itself, sufficient to satisfy the obligation to inform the public that may apply to the deployer. The European Commission’s transparency guidance requires clear, distinguishable and accessible disclosure no later than first exposure. An image may carry a visible notice, an audio advertisement may use an audible announcement, and a video may combine an icon with explanatory text.

The wording should identify the relevant element, for example: “ The character featured in this advertisement was generated using artificial intelligence.” A generic notice hidden in terms of use or shown only at the end of a sequence may be inadequate. For evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional works, the manner of disclosure may be adapted so that it does not interfere with the work, but the duty is not simply removed.

Why is labelling insufficient to secure a campaign?

Advertising claims must remain accurate and substantiated

Article L. 121-2 of the French Consumer Code prohibits false or misleading statements and presentations relating to a product’s essential characteristics, expected results, origin or the advertiser’s commitments. The rule applies regardless of the technology used to produce the visual.

Artificially flawless skin, a simulated product demonstration, a fabricated manufacturing environment or a synthetic testimonial may distort consumer perception. An “AI-generated” notice does not cure an unsupported commercial promise. Marketing teams must be able to substantiate performance claims and distinguish creative illustration from evidence of the product’s actual effect.

To learn more about this transparency obligation, we invite you to consult our previously published article: “What legal challenges arise from the use of artificial intelligence in advertising content by influencers?”

Third-party rights require a separate clearance review

Indicating that content has been generated or modified using AI does not remove the need to ensure that its use respects third-party rights. Article L. 122-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code prohibits the unauthorised reproduction, adaptation or transformation of protected works. An advertising campaign may therefore reproduce or transform a protected work without authorization, but may also infringe trademark, design right, image or voice right, or damage an individual’s reputation.

Where prompts or uploaded files contain photographs, voices, customer profiles or internal documents, the GDPR and confidentiality obligations must also be considered. The CNIL recommends governance involving legal, operational, security and data-protection teams. A closed solution, or one configured to prevent provider reuse of data, may be preferable for sensitive campaign assets.

To learn more regarding the protection of rights, we invite you to consult our previously published article: ” How can one secure or assign rights in a work created with the assistance of artificial intelligence?“.

How should compliance for AI advertising be organised?

Implement a four-stage approval process

We recommend a process proportionate to the campaign’s visibility, budget, duration and territories:

• Document the tools, prompts, source files, successive versions and human modifications to better manage the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence.
• Identify the provider, deployer, responsible advertiser and contractors involved in distribution.
• Clear rights in works, trademarks, music, voices, individuals and data used or reproduced.
• Determine before release whether the content requires technical marking, visible or audible disclosure, modification or regeneration.

Secure the entire contractual chain

Agreements with agencies, studios, influencers and technology providers should require prior notice of AI use, define approved tools, protect confidential material, require delivery of prompts and versions where appropriate, address intellectual property warranties and allocate claims management. A platform’s permission for commercial use does not guarantee that the output is free from third-party rights.

The approval file should remain available after release. Penalties for breach of the transparency requirements may reach EUR 15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover, without excluding takedown measures, misleading-advertising proceedings or compensation claims by right holders.

Conclusion

The use of AI in advertising does not create a general duty to disclose every algorithmic intervention. It does require a structured assessment of realism, apparent authenticity and the likelihood of confusion. Where content constitutes a deepfake, disclosure must be clear and immediate. In every case, the advertiser must still review the accuracy of the message, third-party rights, the data used and the commitments of its contractors.

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

Who is responsible for labeling an AI-generated advertisement: the advertiser, the agency or the platform?

It depends on the role of each party in the campaign. The obligation to inform the public generally falls on the party using the AI system and disseminating the relevant content. Contracts between the advertiser, agency and platform may allocate responsibilities, but they do not exempt each party from complying with the obligations applicable to it.

What happens to an advertisement created before August 2, 2026 but first released after that date?

The creation date alone does not remove the duty. Content that had not already been made available to the public before August 2, 2026 should be assessed under the rules applicable when it is released. The limited transitional arrangements mainly concern certain provider marking obligations and do not create a general exemption for campaigns prepared earlier.

Can a platform require broader AI labelling than the AI Act?

Yes. A social network, advertising platform or an advertising network may impose additional contractual requirements through its terms or advertising policies. Advertisers must comply with both applicable law and the distribution channel’s rules, or risk removal or suspension of the campaign.

Must an AI disclosure be translated for every country in which the campaign appears?

The information must be understandable to the target audience. A multilingual campaign will therefore generally require translation or local adaptation. An icon can support the message, but it may not replace clear text or an audible statement in a language understood by the audience.

How long should prompts and campaign versions be retained?

There is no single retention period for all projects. Records should be kept for at least the exploitation period, the duration of contractual warranties and a reasonable period during which a claim may arise. International or reusable campaigns will generally justify longer retention than short-lived content.

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.

Introduction

The Order simplifying the French Intellectual Property Code, dated July 8, 2026 and published in the Official Journal on July 23, 2026, completes the reform introduced by Decree No. 2026-576 of June 30, 2026. The Order entered into force on July 24, 2026 and removes several mechanisms that had become incompatible with the digitisation of procedures before the INPI.

The reform directly affects the daily practices of applicants, IP rights holders, employee inventors, companies and professional representatives through electronic notifications, restrictions on fee refunds, a new SME threshold, increased protection of residential addresses, the rectification of trademark oppositions and simplified patent procedures.

Why was an implementing order adopted after the decree?

Decree No. 2026-576 of June 30, 2026 amended 35 provisions of the French Intellectual Property Code to harmonise, simplify and modernise INPI procedures. Subject to specific transitional rules, it applies to pending proceedings from July 2, 2026.

The Order of July 8, 2026 aligns the relevant implementing instruments with this revised regulatory framework. It repeals procedures that are no longer required and updates the wording of the INPI fee schedule.

Abolition of the INPI employee-invention declaration envelope

The Order repeals the Order of August 29, 1985, which governed the use of a special double envelope filed with the INPI for the purpose of transmitting an employee-invention declaration to the employer. However, envelopes filed before the reform entered into force remain subject to the former rules.

The employee’s obligation to report an invention has not been abolished. An employee inventor must still inform the employer without delay and disclose sufficient information for the invention to be classified under the applicable statutory regime. The declaration must now be communicated directly by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or by another method capable of proving receipt.

Repeal of obsolete patent, trademark and design instruments

The Order also repeals an Order from September 19, 1979 concerning patent and utility certificate procedures, several trademark orders adopted between 1992 and 1995, and an Order from August 13, 1992 concerning registered designs. These rules had been superseded by subsequent regulatory reforms and the widespread use of online procedures.

Electronic notifications become the standard operational channel

The INPI presents the reform as completing the digitisation of industrial property notifications. An email informs the recipient that a notification is available in the recipient’s personal account on the INPI e-procedures portal. Where no email address is available, a notice may be published in the French Official Bulletin of Industrial Property.

The alert email should not be confused with the procedural document itself. Businesses should monitor the portal regularly, update correspondence details in each relevant application and establish continuity arrangements during holidays, employee absences and staff changes.

Fee refunds become exceptional

The Decree removes several grounds for reimbursement, including certain cases involving inadmissible applications, the termination of patent limitation proceedings, the absence of a required translation for the conversion of a European patent application and the non-transmission of an international application.

The case-law research report fee may still be refunded where preparation of the report has not begun. These rules apply to requests submitted from July 2, 2026.

Applicants should consequently verify admissibility, translations, supporting documents and procedural strategy before paying a fee.

The SME threshold is reduced from 1,000 to 250 employees

For French patent applications filed from July 2, 2026, the workforce threshold for claiming the reduced fee regime is now 250 employees. The applicant must declare its relevant category, SME or non-profit organization, at the filing date. The supporting certificate previously required no longer needs to be attached.

Full residential addresses are no longer published

Where an applicant or rights holder is a natural person, published identifying information is now limited to the person’s surname, given names, municipality and country of residence. The new rules apply to publications concerning patents, trademarks and registered designs.

This measure reflects the data-minimisation principle, under which personal data should be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the stated purpose.

Trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings

The regulatory decision-making period has been extended from three to four months in trademark opposition and administrative cancellation proceedings. The change also applies to proceedings pending on July 2, 2026.

Certain deficiencies affecting a trademark opposition may now be corrected by completing missing information or submitting missing documents. This possibility does not dispense the opponent from complying with the applicable rules on standing, time limits and substantive admissibility.

Patent and utility certificate procedures

The reform introduces several additional adjustments:

• applicants no longer need to provide a copy of an earlier filing when claiming internal priority if the INPI already has access to it;
• the INPI may prepare the abstract of a patent application itself;
• proposed amendments to a patent may be considered until the end of the oral stage of opposition proceedings, provided that the adversarial principle is respected;
• third-party observations on a utility certificate must be filed within three months of publication;
• printed patent specifications are discontinued.

These changes should be incorporated into internal French patent filing and portfolio-management procedures.

What immediate measures should businesses take?

We recommend that businesses:

• verify all email addresses registered with the INPI;
• monitor their e-procedures accounts on a daily basis;
• authorise more than one person to review procedural notifications;
• revise employee-invention declaration templates;
• update opposition, invalidity and non-use revocation calendars;
• retain timestamped evidence of all material communications.

Conclusion

The Order simplifying the French Intellectual Property Code and the Decree of June 30, 2026 remove a number of formalities, but place greater responsibility on applicants to monitor notifications, confirm admissibility and anticipate procedural costs. Digitisation should therefore not be confused with a reduction in the level of legal vigilance required.

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

What happens if the email alerting the recipient to an INPI notification is not received?

Failure to receive the email alert should not be treated as meaning that no notification has been issued. Companies should therefore consult their e-procedures account directly and regularly, secure access to that account and establish a back-up procedure for periods when the person responsible for monitoring it is absent.

Should existing powers of attorney, correspondence details or INPI access rights be updated?

The reform warrants an audit of the contact details and access rights associated with each portfolio. In particular, companies should verify the correspondence email address, the identity of authorised users, access permissions for the portal and the arrangements for forwarding notifications between the company and its representative.

Do the new rules also apply to proceedings initiated before July 2026?

The temporal application of the reform depends on the measure concerned. Certain provisions apply immediately to pending proceedings, while others apply only to applications filed or actions initiated on or after July 2, 2026. Each case should therefore be reviewed individually.

Does restricting the publication of residential addresses make applicants completely anonymous?

No. Certain identifying information remains publicly available, including the individual’s surname, given names, municipality and country of residence. The reform limits the disclosure of the full residential address, but it does not remove the public nature of the registers or the identification of the rights holder.

Do fully digital procedures genuinely reduce the risk of missing a deadline?

Digitisation accelerates communications, but it may also create new risks, including expired access rights, outdated email addresses, filtered messages, failures in internal circulation or the absence of the person managing the matter. Procedural security therefore depends increasingly on the company’s internal organisation rather than solely on the operation of the portal.

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.

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 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

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.