French Trademark Invalidity After Jan 28, 2026: What Brand Owners & Litigators Must Know

On 28 January 2026, France’s highest civil court, the Cour de cassation, issued a landmark ruling that fundamentally reshapes the landscape of trademark invalidity France 2026 litigation. The decision confirms that, under the regime introduced by the PACTE Law (Law No. 2019‑486 of 22 May 2019), actions seeking the invalidity of a trademark registration are not subject to any limitation period, they are, in the court’s terminology, imprescriptible. This eliminates a defence that registrants have relied on for decades, opens the door to challenges against long-standing marks, and creates immediate tactical opportunities, and risks, for rights-holders, challengers, and litigators operating in the French market.

Executive Summary and Key Takeaway

Result: Trademark invalidity actions are not subject to a limitation period under the PACTE regime as interpreted by the Court of Cassation (28 January 2026). For trademarks falling within the scope of the reformed provisions of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI), a competitor, prior-rights holder, or any interested party may now bring an invalidity action at any time, regardless of how long the challenged registration has been on the register.

The practical consequences are significant. Marks previously considered “safe” by virtue of their age are now potentially vulnerable. Pending cases in which limitation defences were raised must be reassessed. Brand owners who have tolerated a competitor’s registration for years without acting now have a renewed basis to challenge it. Industry observers expect an increase in strategic invalidity filings throughout 2026 and beyond.

The five most urgent actions for trademark stakeholders in France are:

1. Audit your portfolio for registrations that could be challenged under the new imprescriptibility principle.
2. Reassess any dormant disputes where limitation was the obstacle to bringing an invalidity claim.
3. Preserve and organise evidence of prior rights, genuine use, and reputation.
4. Review pending INPI administrative proceedings for potential procedural adjustments.
5. Coordinate with EU trademark (EUTM) strategy, since EUIPO invalidity rules remain distinct.

What the Jan 28, 2026 Cour de Cassation Decision Says: French Supreme Court Trademark 2026

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

The decision of 28 January 2026 was rendered by the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de cassation. The case arose from an invalidity action brought against a French national trademark registration. The defendant argued that the claimant’s action was time-barred, invoking the general five-year limitation period under French civil law (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). The lower courts had, in several instances, accepted similar limitation defences prior to the PACTE reforms, creating uncertainty about whether the new statutory framework had eliminated or merely modified the applicable time limits.

The Cour de cassation was asked, in essence, whether the invalidity provisions of the CPI, as amended by the PACTE Law and its implementing ordinances, still permitted the application of a general limitation period to actions seeking to nullify a trademark registration. The procedural posture involved a pourvoi en cassation (appeal on points of law) against a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal.

Legal Ratio: Why Invalidity Actions Are Now Imprescriptible

The court’s reasoning rested on the structure and purpose of the reformed CPI provisions. The PACTE Law substantially rewrote the rules governing invalidity and revocation of trademarks, transposing Directive (EU) 2015/2436 into French law. Critically, the reformed CPI provisions on invalidity, unlike revocation for non-use, which retains specific procedural timeframes, do not prescribe any limitation period for the filing of an invalidity action.

The Cour de cassation held that this silence was deliberate. Where the legislature intended to impose time constraints (as it did for revocation or for the specific defence of “acquiescence” under Article L. 716-4-5 CPI), it said so expressly. The absence of any equivalent provision for invalidity actions meant that the general civil-law limitation period could not be imported by default. The court concluded that invalidity actions under the reformed CPI are imprescriptible, that is, they may be brought without any time limit for trademarks subject to the post-PACTE regime.

This interpretation aligns with the broader EU harmonisation objective: the Trademarks Directive does not require Member States to impose limitation periods on invalidity actions (as distinct from the acquiescence defence), and the French legislature chose not to do so.

Statutory Background: PACTE Law Trademark Invalidity and Pre-2026 Case Law

Key PACTE Provisions

The PACTE Law (Law No. 2019‑486 of 22 May 2019), formally the Loi relative à la croissance et la transformation des entreprises, introduced sweeping changes to French trademark law. Among the most consequential reforms were the creation of an administrative invalidity and revocation procedure before INPI (the French National Institute of Industrial Property), effective 1 April 2020, and a comprehensive overhaul of the grounds for and procedure governing invalidity actions under the CPI.

Before PACTE, invalidity could only be sought before the civil courts. The reformed framework now permits invalidity and revocation proceedings before INPI as an administrative body, in addition to the judicial route before the tribunaux judiciaires. The reformed CPI provisions set out the absolute grounds for invalidity (such as lack of distinctiveness or descriptiveness) and relative grounds (conflict with prior rights), but, crucially, include no express limitation period for bringing such actions.

Pre-Decision Treatment by the Paris Court of Appeal

Prior to the 28 January 2026 decision, the limitation period trademark France question was contested. Some lower court decisions, particularly from the Paris Court of Appeal, had applied the general five-year prescription period from Article 2224 of the Civil Code to trademark invalidity actions. This created a practical window: if a rights-holder failed to challenge a registration within five years of becoming aware of it, the action could be dismissed as time-barred. Other courts took a more nuanced view, questioning whether the reformed CPI, by not mentioning limitation, had implicitly excluded it. The January 2026 Cour de cassation ruling resolved this split definitively in favour of imprescriptibility.

Practical Impact of Trademark Invalidity France 2026 Decision

Impact on Pending Invalidity Procedures (INPI and Courts)

The immediate effect is that any pending invalidity action in which the defendant raised a limitation defence must now be reassessed. Where INPI or a court has stayed proceedings or entertained a time-bar objection, the basis for that defence has been removed. The likely practical effect will be that defendants shift their strategy from procedural limitation arguments to substantive defences, challenging the validity of the claimant’s prior rights, asserting genuine use, or invoking the acquiescence defence under Article L. 716-4-5 CPI (which remains available where its specific conditions are met).

Impact on Enforcement and Injunctive Relief

For rights-holders, the decision strengthens the hand of anyone seeking injunctive relief against an infringing registration. Since the invalidity action is no longer time-barred, enforcement strategies can be designed without the pressure of a ticking limitation clock. However, it is important to note that the imprescriptibility applies to the invalidity action itself, separate limitation periods may still apply to claims for damages or other monetary remedies associated with infringement.

The following table maps common scenarios to their likely consequence after the decision:

Procedure: How to Bring or Defend a Trademark Invalidity Action in France, Trademark Litigation France 2026

Challenging a trademark registration France now demands a clear procedural strategy. The reformed CPI provides two main routes: the administrative procedure before INPI and the judicial procedure before the tribunaux judiciaires. Each route has distinct advantages, and the choice between them depends on the grounds invoked, the complexity of the dispute, and the remedies sought.

Forum Options: INPI Administrative Nullity vs Civil Courts

• INPI Administrative Procedure. Available since 1 April 2020 for invalidity on absolute grounds and certain relative grounds. Proceedings are paper-based, cost-effective, and typically faster than litigation. INPI decisions are appealable to the Paris Court of Appeal. The administrative route does not allow damages claims, it is limited to declaring the mark invalid or revoking it.
• Civil Courts (Tribunaux Judiciaires). The judicial route remains available for all invalidity grounds and is the only forum where damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies can be combined with the invalidity action. The specialised IP courts (notably the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris) have deep expertise and a developed body of case law. Proceedings are adversarial, with full oral argument and cross-examination of evidence.

Evidence Packages: Use, Bad Faith, and Relative Grounds

Success in an invalidity action depends heavily on evidence preparation. Whether proceeding before INPI or the courts, the claimant must demonstrate the grounds for invalidity with specificity. For relative-grounds actions (e.g., conflict with a prior trademark or other earlier right), the evidence bundle should include:

• Proof of the prior right. Registration certificates, dated commercial use records, invoices, advertising materials, and evidence of reputation in the relevant territory.
• Likelihood of confusion analysis. Side-by-side comparison of marks, evidence of consumer perception, market survey data where available.
• Bad faith evidence (where applicable). Correspondence showing the registrant’s knowledge of the prior right, evidence of intent to block or free-ride.

For absolute-grounds actions (lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness, deceptiveness), evidence should demonstrate the meaning the sign conveys to the relevant public, dictionary definitions, trade publications, usage evidence.

Filing Checklist and Sample Claims Outline

Below is a practical filing checklist for practitioners bringing an invalidity action under the post-PACTE framework:

1. Identify the forum. INPI (administrative) or tribunal judiciaire (judicial), based on grounds, remedies, and strategic objectives.
2. Draft the request or claim. Specify the challenged registration, the grounds for invalidity (citing CPI articles), and the factual basis with supporting evidence.
3. Assemble the evidence bundle. Organised chronologically, with French-language translations of any foreign-language documents.
4. Calculate fees. INPI administrative filing fees are modest; court proceedings involve court fees plus attorney costs.
5. Serve notice on the registrant. Formal service requirements differ between INPI and judicial proceedings, ensure compliance.
6. Prepare for the registrant’s response. Anticipate substantive defences (genuine use, acquiescence, consent) and procedural objections.
7. Consider provisional measures. Where infringement is ongoing, seek interim injunctive relief from the court alongside or in advance of the invalidity action.

A sample claims outline for a judicial invalidity action might include:

• Identification of the parties and their standing
• Description of the challenged trademark (registration number, classes, date of registration)
• Statement of the claimant’s prior right(s) and evidence of use or reputation
• Legal grounds for invalidity (citing specific CPI provisions, e.g., Article L. 711-2 for absolute grounds or Article L. 711-3 for relative grounds)
• Analysis of likelihood of confusion or other applicable legal test
• Request for relief: declaration of invalidity, cancellation from the register, and, if applicable, damages and injunctive orders

Trademark Revocation vs Invalidity: Tactical Differences

While the 28 January 2026 decision specifically addresses invalidity, practitioners must also understand how it interacts with the parallel mechanism of revocation (déchéance). The two remedies serve different purposes and have distinct procedural requirements. Understanding the difference between trademark revocation vs invalidity is essential for selecting the right enforcement strategy.

When to Choose Revocation vs Invalidity

Revocation is the appropriate tool when the primary concern is a dormant registration, a mark that the registrant has not genuinely used for at least five consecutive years. Invalidity is the correct route when the registration should never have been granted in the first place: because it lacked distinctiveness, was descriptive or deceptive, or conflicted with an earlier right. In many disputes, both actions are filed in parallel for maximum tactical leverage. For a broader perspective on how to protect your intellectual property across borders, coordinating invalidity and revocation strategies across jurisdictions is critical.

Interaction With EU (EUTM) Invalidity and Cross-Border Enforcement

The 28 January 2026 decision applies specifically to French national trademarks governed by the CPI. EU trademarks (EUTMs) are subject to a separate regime administered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The interaction between the two systems raises important tactical questions for rights-holders operating across borders.

EUTM invalidity proceedings follow the rules set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. EUIPO applies its own procedural framework, including specific provisions on the acquiescence defence, and its decisions are appealable to the EUIPO Boards of Appeal and then to the General Court and Court of Justice of the European Union. Importantly, a decision by EUIPO on the validity of an EUTM does not automatically bind French courts on the validity of a parallel French national registration, and vice versa.

Early indications suggest that the imprescriptibility established by the Cour de cassation will encourage rights-holders to pursue parallel national invalidity actions in France even where they have already filed, or been unsuccessful, at EUIPO level. The French national route now offers a significant advantage: no limitation period. Conversely, defendants holding both an EUTM and a French national mark should consider the risk that a successful French invalidity action could undermine the broader enforceability of their brand in the EU. Coordination with counsel experienced in both French and EU trademark litigation is essential. For further resources, see the international intellectual property guide.

For Rights-Holders: Immediate Checklist and Recommended Actions

Whether you are a brand owner seeking to enforce your rights or a registrant assessing vulnerability, the decision demands immediate action. Below is a practical playbook for rights-holders asking what to do if a trademark is infringed in France, or if their own registrations may now face challenge.

1. Conduct a portfolio audit. Identify all French national trademark registrations in your portfolio. Flag any marks that may lack distinctiveness, were registered in bad faith, or conflict with third-party prior rights.
2. Preserve and organise evidence of genuine use. Collect and date-stamp invoices, packaging, advertising materials, screenshots of online use, social media activity, and any other evidence showing continuous commercial use in France. Maintain a rolling evidence file for each key registration.
3. Review dormant disputes. If you previously decided not to challenge a competitor’s registration because the limitation period had expired, reassess whether an invalidity action is now viable.
4. Send cease-and-desist letters where appropriate. Where a conflicting registration is being actively used against your interests, a formal mise en demeure, citing the new legal landscape, can establish the basis for future litigation and, in many cases, prompt a negotiated resolution.
5. Evaluate the INPI vs court route. For straightforward absolute-grounds challenges, the INPI administrative procedure is fast and cost-effective. For disputes involving damages, bad faith, or complex factual issues, the judicial route is preferable.
6. Budget for enforcement. Factor in the costs of INPI filing fees, attorney fees, expert reports, and potential court proceedings. Cross-border disputes require additional budgeting for coordination with EUIPO proceedings.
7. Coordinate cross-border strategy. If you hold parallel rights in France and at EU level, ensure your enforcement strategy is coherent. A successful invalidity action in France may influence, even if it does not bind, parallel EUIPO proceedings.

A sample evidence checklist for genuine use should include:

• Dated invoices and sales records for goods or services bearing the mark
• Advertising expenditure records and copies of advertisements (print, digital, broadcast)
• Packaging, labels, and product photographs
• Website and social media screenshots with visible dates and URLs
• Distribution agreements, licensing contracts, and correspondence referencing the mark
• Market survey data or consumer recognition evidence (where available)

To connect with qualified IP litigation counsel in France, consult the Global Law Experts lawyer directory.

Conclusion and Recommended Next Steps

The Cour de cassation’s 28 January 2026 decision marks a definitive turning point for trademark invalidity France 2026 practice. By confirming that invalidity actions under the post-PACTE CPI are imprescriptible, the court has removed a key procedural shield for trademark registrants, and given challengers an open-ended opportunity to seek the cancellation of problematic registrations. Rights-holders on both sides of the equation must act now: audit portfolios, reassess dormant disputes, preserve evidence, and develop clear enforcement strategies that account for the new legal reality. For complex disputes, particularly those spanning both French and EU trademark regimes, early engagement with experienced IP litigation counsel is not merely advisable, it is essential.

Sources

1. Cour de cassation, Decision of 28 January 2026 (Official)
2. Legifrance, PACTE Law (Law No. 2019-486 of 22 May 2019)
3. INPI, French National Institute of Industrial Property
4. EUIPO, European Union Intellectual Property Office
5. Mondaq, French Supreme Court: No Limitation Period for Trademark Invalidity Actions After the PACTE Law
6. Bardehle Pagenberg, France: No Limitation Period for Trademark Invalidity Actions After the PACTE Law
7. Dreyfus, Trademark Invalidity in France and the European Union
8. Chambers Practice Guides, Trade Marks & Copyright 2026: France