How to Sue for Trademark Infringement in France (2026): Jurisdiction, Evidence, Timelines and Interim Relief

France remains one of Europe’s most active jurisdictions for trademark enforcement, and understanding how to sue for trademark infringement is essential for any brand owner or in-house counsel facing unauthorised use of a registered mark on French territory. The country’s Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI) provides both civil and criminal routes, with French courts offering powerful interim measures, including the distinctive saisie-contrefaçon evidence-seizure procedure, that can neutralise an infringer within days rather than months. Recent guidance from French appellate courts has sharpened the evidentiary standards around “plausibility” and “evidence reasonably accessible,” making it critical for claimants to plan their enforcement strategy with precision from the outset.

This guide walks through every stage of the process: jurisdiction and standing, filing and service mechanics, interim relief, evidence and burden of proof, damages and costs, realistic litigation timelines, and cross-border enforcement of EU marks.

How to Sue for Trademark Infringement in France: Quick Step-by-Step Workflow

Before diving into the procedural detail, the following eight-step workflow provides a high-level roadmap for bringing a trademark infringement lawsuit in France. Each step is expanded in dedicated sections below.

1. Pre-action assessment. Confirm the validity and scope of your mark (French national, EU trade mark or international registration designating France). Identify the infringing acts and the defendant.
2. Cease and desist letter. Although not mandatory under French law, a well-drafted mise en demeure demonstrates good faith and may resolve the dispute without litigation.
3. Evidence capture. Gather and preserve evidence of infringement, screenshots, test purchases, customs records, online marketplace listings, before alerting the infringer.
4. Saisie-contrefaçon (evidence seizure). Apply to the presiding judge of the Tribunal judiciaire for an order authorising a bailiff (commissaire de justice) to seize infringing goods and documents at the defendant’s premises.
5. Interim relief. Where urgency demands it, file for référé (fast-track interim injunction) or, in exceptional cases, an ordonnance sur requête (ex parte order).
6. File the substantive complaint. Draft and file the assignation (writ of summons) setting out the legal basis, facts, evidence and relief sought.
7. Service by bailiff. The assignation must be served on the defendant by a commissaire de justice (formerly huissier de justice).
8. Evidential phase, trial and judgment. Exchange written submissions (conclusions), attend hearings, and obtain a judgment on the merits, including injunctive relief, damages and cost orders.

Pre-action checklist

• Confirm registration certificate and renewal status (INPI or EUIPO database).
• Verify that the mark has been put to genuine use in France within the past five years (to pre-empt a revocation counterclaim).
• Identify the defendant’s legal form, registered address and any assets.
• Assess whether infringement is identical-goods/identical-mark or falls within the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
• Budget for legal costs and consider litigation insurance or third-party funding.

Jurisdiction and Who May Sue (Standing)

French trademark litigation is primarily a civil matter, heard before the Tribunal judiciaire. Under Articles L716-1 and following of the CPI, civil proceedings for trademark infringement (contrefaçon de marque) fall within the exclusive competence of specialised IP chambers, most notably at the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, which handles the majority of complex trademark disputes. Criminal proceedings are also available (Articles L716-9 to L716-12 CPI), but the civil route is overwhelmingly preferred by brand owners because it offers broader remedial options and places the conduct of the case in the rights-holder’s hands.

Standing to bring a trademark infringement lawsuit in France belongs to the registered owner of the mark. An exclusive licensee may also bring proceedings in their own name, provided their licence has been recorded with INPI and the licence agreement does not restrict this right. Non-exclusive licensees generally require the owner’s consent or must demonstrate that the owner, having been formally put on notice, has failed to act within a reasonable period.

Where to file: jurisdiction rules and international defendants

For French national marks, the competent court is typically the Tribunal judiciaire in the defendant’s domicile or the place where the infringing act occurred. For EU trade marks, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 designates national “EU trade mark courts”, in France, primarily the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris. When the defendant is domiciled outside France, the claimant may rely on EU jurisdictional rules (Brussels I bis Regulation) or, for non-EU defendants, the place where the infringing goods entered French commerce. Service on international defendants is governed by the Hague Service Convention or the EU Service Regulation, depending on the defendant’s country.

How to File a Claim for Trademark Infringement: Contents, Service and Procedural Mechanics

A trademark infringement lawsuit in France begins with the preparation and service of an assignation, a formal writ of summons. The assignation must contain the identity of the parties, the court seized, the facts of infringement, the legal basis (citing the relevant CPI articles), the evidence relied upon, and the relief sought (injunction, damages, costs, destruction of infringing goods). Procedural rules require the claimant to set out their arguments in sufficient detail from the outset; French courts expect comprehensive written submissions rather than relying heavily on oral advocacy.

Once drafted, the assignation is served on the defendant by a commissaire de justice. This step is mandatory, informal delivery or postal service is insufficient. The bailiff prepares a formal procès-verbal confirming service, which is filed with the court registry. From the date of service, the defendant has a fixed period (typically 15 days in urgent matters, or as set by the court schedule) to instruct counsel and prepare a response.

Sample evidence appendix: exhibits to include

• Registration certificate and renewal evidence (INPI or EUIPO extract).
• Evidence of genuine use of the mark in France (invoices, marketing materials, sales data).
• Screenshots of infringing use (timestamped, ideally authenticated by a commissaire de justice or via a certified platform).
• Test purchase records (receipts, photographs of packaging and labels).
• Saisie-contrefaçon report, if one has been obtained.
• Correspondence with the infringer (cease-and-desist letter and response).
• Expert reports or market surveys, if applicable.
• Evidence of harm: lost sales data, price erosion, reputational damage.

Service abroad: Hague Convention and EU Service Regulation

Where the defendant is domiciled in another EU Member State, the EU Service Regulation (Regulation 2020/1784) provides a streamlined mechanism for cross-border service through designated transmitting and receiving agencies. For defendants outside the EU, service is effected under the Hague Service Convention. In either case, the claimant should factor in additional time, typically four to twelve weeks, for international service to be completed and proof returned to the French court.

Interim Relief in France: Preliminary Injunctions and Ex Parte Measures

One of the most powerful aspects of French trademark enforcement is the availability of rapid preliminary injunctions in France. The CPI and the French Code of Civil Procedure provide several mechanisms for urgent relief, each with a different evidentiary threshold and procedural profile.

Ex parte vs interlocutory: when to seek which

The saisie-contrefaçon is arguably France’s most distinctive enforcement tool. Under Articles L716-4-7 and R716-1 CPI, the rights-holder applies to the president of the Tribunal judiciaire for an order authorising a commissaire de justice to enter the alleged infringer’s premises without notice, seize samples of infringing goods, take copies of business documents, and make detailed observations. The purpose is evidentiary: the seizure produces a formal report that becomes the foundation for the substantive claim. This ex parte injunction in France must be followed by the filing of a substantive action within a strict deadline (20 working days, or 31 calendar days, from the date of the seizure), failing which the seizure is void.

For broader interim relief, such as ordering the defendant to cease use of the mark, to withdraw products from the market, or to provide information about supply chains, the claimant files a référé (fast-track interim proceedings). The standard for granting a référé order requires the claimant to demonstrate the plausibility of their right, urgency (risk of irreparable harm or continuing damage), and a balance of interests that favours intervention. French courts have increasingly adopted the “evidence reasonably accessible” standard drawn from the EU Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC), meaning the claimant need not prove their case to the full merits standard but must present sufficiently convincing evidence that infringement is occurring.

In exceptional circumstances, where even inter partes notice to the defendant would risk the destruction of evidence or allow continued irreversible harm, the court may grant an ordonnance sur requête, an entirely ex parte order. Industry observers note that French courts grant these sparingly and typically require the applicant to provide a cross-undertaking in damages or post a security bond.

Practical tips for interim relief applications

• Preserve online evidence before sending any cease-and-desist letter, use certified screenshot tools or instruct a commissaire de justice to carry out a constat Internet (official report of online content).
• Prepare a detailed requête (application) demonstrating the validity of your right, the evidence of infringement, and the urgency of the situation.
• Budget for the commissaire de justice fees (typically €1,500–€5,000 for a standard saisie-contrefaçon, depending on scope and location).
• File the substantive claim promptly after a saisie-contrefaçon to avoid the 20-working-day deadline lapsing.

Evidence and Burden of Proof in a Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in France

The burden of proof trademark France places squarely on the claimant. To succeed on the merits, the rights-holder must establish three elements: (1) a valid and enforceable trademark right; (2) use by the defendant of an identical or similar sign in the course of trade for identical or similar goods or services; and (3) a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public (unless the marks and goods are identical, in which case confusion is presumed under Article L713-2 CPI).

French courts assess similarity using three cumulative tests: visual, phonetic, and conceptual. These are evaluated globally, a high degree of similarity on one axis can compensate for lower similarity on another. The court also considers the distinctive character and reputation of the earlier mark, the degree of attention of the relevant consumer, and the conditions under which goods are marketed.

Proof of use, similarity tests and proof of damage

The “evidence reasonably accessible” standard is particularly important at the preliminary injunction stage. Under French procedural law and the EU Enforcement Directive, the claimant is not required to present conclusive proof of infringement at the interim stage, they must demonstrate that they have gathered and presented the evidence that is reasonably within their reach, and that this evidence makes the existence of infringement plausible. This standard reflects the practical reality that much of the detailed evidence (manufacturing volumes, profit margins, supply chain data) may lie in the defendant’s hands.

For the substantive trial, claimants should plan to present:

• Proof of registration and genuine use (INPI/EUIPO certificates, commercial evidence).
• Detailed comparison of marks (visual, phonetic, conceptual analysis, ideally supported by expert opinion).
• Evidence of the defendant’s use in commerce (website captures, product photos, invoices, advertising).
• Consumer confusion evidence (surveys, complaints, misdirected correspondence).
• Financial evidence of loss (internal sales data, margin analysis, market reports).

Remedies, Damages and Costs for Trademark Infringement in France

French law provides a robust toolkit of remedies. On the injunctive side, courts routinely order the defendant to cease all use of the infringing sign, to withdraw and destroy infringing products, and to remove infringing content from websites and social media. Periodic penalty payments (astreinte) are commonly attached to injunctions, typically ranging from €500 to €5,000 per day of non-compliance, to ensure swift enforcement.

Damages for trademark infringement in France are assessed under Article L716-4-10 CPI, which transposes the EU Enforcement Directive. The court considers the following heads of loss:

• Actual loss suffered. Lost profits, price erosion, and reduced market share.
• Infringer’s profits. The court may order disgorgement of profits attributable to the infringement.
• Hypothetical royalty. The amount the infringer would have paid as a reasonable licence fee.
• Moral prejudice. Damage to brand reputation, loss of exclusivity, and dilution effects.

Regarding costs, French procedure distinguishes between dépens (recoverable court costs, including bailiff fees and expert costs) and frais irrépétibles (non-recoverable costs, principally lawyer fees). Under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may award a discretionary contribution towards the winning party’s legal fees, but this rarely covers the full cost of litigation.

Note: All cost estimates are indicative ranges based on published practitioner guidance and should be discussed with counsel based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Litigation Timeline: Realistic Milestones

Timing varies significantly depending on the complexity of the case, the court’s docket, and whether interim relief is sought. The following milestone timeline reflects typical experience for a mid-complexity trademark case before the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris.

• Weeks 0–2: Pre-action assessment, evidence gathering and cease-and-desist letter.
• Weeks 2–4: Application for saisie-contrefaçon; execution of seizure by commissaire de justice.
• Weeks 3–6: Référé hearing (if interim relief is sought), decision typically issued within days to weeks.
• Weeks 4–8: Filing and service of the assignation on the merits.
• Months 3–6: Exchange of written submissions (conclusions) and evidence between parties.
• Months 6–14: Oral hearing on the merits (plaidoiries).
• Months 8–18: First-instance judgment delivered.
• Months 12–30: Appeal (if filed), the Paris Court of Appeal typically hears IP appeals within 12–18 months.

The likely practical effect of seeking référé relief early is that the defendant is placed under immediate commercial pressure, which often accelerates settlement discussions well before the merits hearing.

Enforcing Foreign and EU Trademark Rights: Cross-Border Considerations

Holders of EU trade marks (registered at EUIPO) can enforce their rights directly before the designated French EU trade mark courts. The scope of relief may extend to the entire EU territory where the infringement has effect, although French courts typically focus their injunctions on acts occurring within France. Coordination with parallel actions in other Member States is increasingly common, and industry observers expect the interplay between national French courts and the Unified Patent Court (UPC), while the latter handles patents, not trade marks, to influence broader enforcement strategy as rights-holders consolidate their IP litigation across Europe.

French customs authorities offer a complementary enforcement channel. Under the EU Customs Regulation (608/2013), rights-holders can file an Application for Action (AFA) with French customs (Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects) to request the detention of suspected counterfeit goods at the border. This mechanism is particularly effective against bulk importations and can be set up proactively, before any specific shipment is identified. Online marketplace takedowns, through platforms’ own notice-and-takedown procedures, provide another non-judicial tool that can be deployed in parallel with or in advance of formal litigation.

Practical Checklists and Templates

The following checklists consolidate the key preparatory steps discussed throughout this guide. Rights-holders and their counsel should adapt each checklist to the specifics of their case.

• Evidence preservation checklist. Timestamped screenshots (certified where possible); test purchases with chain-of-custody documentation; constat Internet by commissaire de justice; customs seizure records; copies of advertising, catalogues and price lists used by the infringer.
• Pre-action letter checklist. Identify the recipient and their legal form; attach proof of the registered mark; describe the infringing acts with specificity; set a clear deadline for response (typically 8–15 days); preserve a copy of the letter and proof of receipt.
• Interim injunction request checklist. Proof of valid and enforceable right; evidence of infringing acts (reasonably accessible standard); demonstration of urgency and risk of irreparable harm; proposed scope of injunction; cross-undertaking in damages or security bond (if required).
• Sample exhibit index. Number all exhibits sequentially; provide a one-line description; note the source and date of each document; flag any exhibits requiring translation into French.

When Not to Litigate: Alternatives to Court

Litigation is not always the optimal enforcement path. Before committing to court proceedings, brand owners should weigh several alternatives: a formal cease-and-desist letter that resolves the matter through negotiation; mediation (which French courts increasingly encourage, and which may be ordered at the mise en état stage); customs action for imported counterfeits; and marketplace takedown requests, which can remove infringing listings within hours. A structured cost-benefit assessment, factoring in litigation costs, the defendant’s solvency, the commercial significance of the infringement, and the precedent value of a judgment, should guide the enforcement decision.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Understanding how to sue for trademark infringement in France requires navigating a distinctive procedural landscape, from the powerful saisie-contrefaçon seizure mechanism to the fast-track référé procedure and the nuanced “plausibility” evidentiary standard at the interim stage. The framework rewards preparation: rights-holders who invest in thorough evidence gathering, strategic pre-action correspondence, and timely interim applications are best positioned to secure effective relief. For brand owners and in-house counsel considering enforcement action in France, engaging specialist IP counsel at the earliest stage is essential to ensure that jurisdictional, procedural and evidentiary requirements are met. Qualified IP litigators can be found through the Global Law Experts lawyer directory.

This article provides general information on French trademark enforcement procedure and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice tailored to their specific circumstances. Last updated: May 31, 2026.

Sources

1. Legifrance, Code de la propriété intellectuelle
2. INPI (Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle)
3. Cours d’appel, Compensation for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (Sheet No. 15)
4. Gomis & Lacker Avocats, Trademark Infringement Complaint France
5. Dreyfus, Trademark Infringement Action
6. World Trademark Review, France Chapter
7. Lexology, Trademark Enforcement in France
8. Danubia IP, Interim Injunction for Trademark Infringement
9. EUIPO, Remedies and Enforcement for EU Trade Marks