How to Enforce IP Rights Against Online Marketplaces and Platforms in France (2026)

Intro, why 2026 matters for online IP enforcement in France

Effective online IP enforcement france in 2026 turns on the interaction between two developments: the full operational rollout of the EU Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065), which has been fully applicable since 17 February 2024, and the continuing evolution of French procedural practice on digital evidence and intermediary liability. Brand owners now confront infringement that scales across marketplaces, hosting providers and social commerce faster than any single takedown can address, while the tools to respond, platform disclosure requests, preservation orders, saisie-contrefaçon and interim injunctions, have grown both more powerful and more procedurally demanding.

This guide sets out, in practical sequence, how to combine platform cooperation with French judicial remedies to stop online infringement and, critically, to preserve the evidence you will need if the dispute reaches court. It is written for rights-holders and their advisers who must act decisively and lawfully in the first hours of an infringement, and it assumes you want enforceable results, not general commentary.

Quick action flowchart, deciding your first 72 hours

Speed and discipline in the opening 72 hours frequently determine the strength of a later case. Digital evidence is volatile: listings are deleted, sellers disappear, and metadata is overwritten. The sequence below is designed to preserve options while moving fast.

1. Hour 0–4, Capture and log. Take dated, comprehensive screenshots and full-page captures of every infringing listing, including URLs, seller pages, prices, stock indicators and any messaging. Record the exact date and time, ideally using a method that timestamps reliably. Where possible, have a commissaire de justice (bailiff) draw up a formal online capture report (constat), which carries greater evidential weight than self-generated screenshots.
2. Hour 4–12, File a platform notice. Submit a precise, evidenced takedown notice through the platform’s notice-and-action channel, citing your rights and attaching proof of title.
3. Hour 12–24, Send a preservation request. In parallel, request that the platform preserve seller identity data, transaction records and content, warning that judicial disclosure will be sought.
4. Day 1–3, Assess escalation. If the takedown is refused, delayed or partial, or if you need seller identity and financial data, prepare for a référé (urgent proceedings), a disclosure order or a saisie-contrefaçon.
5. Day 2–5, Instruct the team. Engage a commissaire de justice, a technical expert and counsel to prepare an application for judicial authorisation where a seizure or disclosure order is warranted.

Warning: confidentiality matters. Where you intend to apply for a saisie-contrefaçon or an ex parte disclosure order, avoid tipping off the infringer through premature correspondence that would let them destroy evidence.

Legal framework, French and EU law that matters for online IP enforcement in France (2026)

Any strategy for online IP enforcement france must be grounded in the interplay between substantive French IP law, French civil procedure and the EU platform regime. The substantive rights themselves, trade marks, copyright, designs, patents, sit in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI), which also anchors the enforcement measures available to rights-holders, including the saisie-contrefaçon and injunctive relief against infringers and intermediaries.

The procedural machinery lives in the Code de procédure civile (CPC). It governs how you obtain urgent relief through the référé, how a court authorises an evidential seizure, and how provisional and disclosure measures are ordered. The two codes must be read together: the CPI grants the right and the remedy in principle, while the CPC dictates how you actually secure authorisation, execute a seizure and enforce an order.

Layered over this is the EU dimension. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act, reshapes the obligations of hosting services and online marketplaces operating in France, standardising notice-and-action mechanisms, imposing transparency requirements, and creating clearer cooperation pathways for rights-holders. In France, the loi n° 2024-449 du 21 mai 2024 (the “SREN” law) adapted domestic law to the DSA and designated the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (Arcom) as the national Digital Services Coordinator. The DSA does not replace French remedies; it complements them, and for larger platforms it raises the baseline of responsiveness that a rights-holder can expect.

The e-commerce liability regime, under which intermediaries benefit from limited liability where they play a passive, technical role and act expeditiously once notified, continues to inform how far a platform can be held responsible for content it merely hosts.

Understanding ISP liability france is essential because it defines who you can practically target and on what basis. A purely passive host that removes infringing content promptly on proper notice is treated differently from a platform that actively curates, optimises or promotes listings. The more active the intermediary’s role, the greater the scope to pursue it directly and to obtain robust orders against it.

Key French procedural tools (référé, ordonnance, saisie-contrefaçon)

• Référé. Urgent summary proceedings before a judge, used to obtain fast provisional relief such as an order to remove listings or to disclose information where the claim is not seriously contestable or urgency and a risk of harm are shown.
• Ordonnance sur requête. An ex parte order obtained without notifying the opposing party, appropriate where the element of surprise is necessary, for example, to authorise a seizure or a preservation measure before evidence can be destroyed.
• Saisie-contrefaçon. A court-authorised evidential seizure allowing a commissaire de justice, often accompanied by a technical expert, to gather detailed proof of infringement, including copies of content, transaction records and physical or digital materials.

Platform obligations under the DSA and practical effects

The DSA requires in-scope platforms to operate accessible notice-and-action systems, to act on properly substantiated notices, and to provide reasons for their decisions. Very large online platforms (VLOPs) carry heightened transparency, risk-assessment and cooperation duties. For a rights-holder, this means a well-drafted notice now has a clearer statutory hook: a compliant platform should assess and, where appropriate, remove or disable access to notified infringing content. It also means platforms must offer complaint and redress channels, which cuts both ways, a seller wrongly removed can contest the action, so your notice must be accurate and evidenced.

Crucially, platform compliance under the DSA is not a substitute for judicial remedies where you need seller identity, financial data or a binding order; for that, French disclosure orders and saisie-contrefaçon remain indispensable.

Evidence preservation online, platform preservation and disclosure orders

Evidence preservation online is the foundation of every successful enforcement action. Because digital evidence is fragile, the practical goal in the first phase is to freeze the state of the infringement before it can be altered and to secure the underlying data that identifies the wrongdoer. There are three complementary routes: voluntary platform preservation, French judicial preservation and disclosure measures, and, where cross-border content is at stake, EU cooperation and instruments.

Begin with a voluntary preservation request to the platform. Even where a platform cannot immediately disclose seller data without a court order, it can often preserve records so they are not lost to routine retention limits. Frame the request precisely, identify the listings by URL, and put the platform on notice that judicial disclosure will follow. Retention policies vary and data can be purged, so the timing of this step is critical, send it early, in parallel with your takedown notice.

Where the platform will not disclose voluntarily, French procedure allows you to apply for disclosure and preservation measures, for example under Article 145 of the Code de procédure civile, which permits measures to preserve or establish evidence before any trial where there is a legitimate reason to do so. These marketplace disclosure orders can, in appropriate cases, compel a platform to hand over the identity and contact details of sellers, transaction and payment data, and the content itself. The application must be specific: courts will not sanction fishing expeditions. You must identify the material sought, explain why it is necessary to your claim, and show a legitimate basis.

Where the content or data sits with intermediaries in more than one Member State, EU judicial cooperation mechanisms may be relevant, subject to their own scope and procedural complexity.

Deadline warning: many platforms retain transaction and identity data for limited periods. If you delay the preservation request, the very evidence that would identify a repeat infringer or the true seller behind an alias may be irretrievably gone by the time an order is granted.

What to ask platforms for, data and metadata checklist

• Seller identity: legal name, trading name, registered address, and any trader-verification records held under the DSA’s traceability duties for marketplaces.
• Contact data: email addresses, telephone numbers and account registration details.
• Payment and financial data: bank or payment-service details, payout records and transaction volumes.
• Listing data: full URLs, listing creation and edit timestamps, images and descriptions.
• Transaction data: sales volumes, order histories and shipping records.
• Logistics: fulfilment and shipping information, warehouse or dispatch locations where held.
• Communications: user messages, complaint records and any prior notice history for the same seller.
• Technical metadata: IP logs, device identifiers and access timestamps where retained.

Platform takedowns and escalation to courts

The first practical remedy against an infringing listing is the platform takedown France mechanism itself. Every major marketplace operates a notice channel, and under the DSA these channels must be genuinely accessible and responsive. A takedown notice is not a mere complaint form entry, it is the first document that a court may later scrutinise, so it should be drafted with the same care as a pleading. The stronger and more precise the notice, the more likely a compliant platform is to act, and the better your position if you must escalate.

Escalation follows where the platform refuses, acts too slowly, or removes only some listings while identical infringements reappear under new seller accounts. At that point, injunctions against marketplaces become the tool of choice. A référé can produce a rapid order requiring removal and, in appropriate cases, requiring the platform to take measures to prevent the reappearance of the same infringing content, bearing in mind that EU law does not permit general monitoring obligations, so any such order must be targeted and specific. Where you also need identity and financial data to pursue the seller, combine the removal application with a disclosure request so that a single judicial intervention delivers both takedown and evidence.

Cross-platform enforcement is a practical reality: infringers migrate between marketplaces, social channels and mirror sites. Coordinate notices across all platforms simultaneously and document each refusal or delay, because a pattern of non-compliance strengthens an application for judicial relief. Multi-jurisdiction issues arise where the platform or seller sits outside France; here the choice of French forum, the location of the harm and the reach of any order must be considered from the outset.

Template takedown notice, what courts expect

A takedown notice that will withstand later scrutiny should contain the following in clear terms:

• A precise identification of the IP right relied on, including registration numbers where relevant and proof of title.
• An exact identification of the infringing content, listing each URL and describing why it infringes.
• The legal basis for the complaint, referencing the relevant right and the platform’s own obligations.
• Supporting evidence: dated screenshots, product comparisons and any expert observations.
• Complete contact details and a statement of good faith and accuracy, as the notice-and-action regime requires.

Saisie-contrefaçon vs platforms and hosting providers

The saisie-contrefaçon is among the most powerful evidential tools in French IP litigation, and it is central to serious online IP enforcement france. It is a court-authorised measure allowing a commissaire de justice to attend and seize proof of infringement, copies of content, records, and, in physical cases, samples and documents. The pressing question for online enforcement is whether it can be directed at a marketplace or hosting provider rather than only at the seller or manufacturer.

In appropriate cases the answer is yes. Where an intermediary holds infringing content, seller records or transaction data relevant to proving the infringement and its scale, a court can authorise measures reaching that material. This is particularly valuable where the seller is anonymous or based abroad and the platform is the only accessible repository of the evidence. That said, real hurdles arise. Service on the platform, the confidentiality of third-party commercial data, and the technical execution of a seizure over digital assets all require careful planning.

Where the target is a passive host benefiting from limited liability, the framing of the request must respect the boundaries of ISP liability france, focusing the measure on preserving evidence rather than treating the host as the primary infringer.

Drafting the request for authorisation demands precision. The court must be told exactly what is to be seized, where, and why it is necessary and proportionate. The application should anticipate the technical realities of online evidence: capturing images of listings, downloading content, and dealing with mirror sites or duplicated storefronts that reappear after removal. Confidentiality and redaction mechanisms should be built in, so that the seizure gathers what you need without exposing unrelated third-party data. Because the measure is intrusive and typically obtained ex parte, courts expect a credible, well-evidenced showing of the underlying right and the infringement before they will authorise it.

Practical checklist for organising a saisie-contrefaçon (team, expert, bailiff)

• Court authorisation. Prepare a precise request identifying the rights, the target, the material to be seized and the justification.
• Commissaire de justice. Engage an experienced commissaire de justice to execute the measure and produce a formal record.
• Technical expert. Instruct an expert to capture digital evidence properly, images, downloads, hashes and timestamps, so it withstands challenge.
• Proof of infringement. Assemble title documents, comparisons and prior notices to satisfy the court at the authorisation stage.
• Platform coordination. Plan service on the platform and any notice required, balancing this against the need for surprise.
• Logistics. Sequence timing, personnel and storage of seized material, and prepare redaction protocols for confidential third-party data.

Deadline note: a saisie-contrefaçon must be followed by proceedings on the merits within the time limit fixed by law, failing which the seizure can be annulled at the defendant’s request. Confirm the current statutory period under the CPI when planning your timetable.

Interim measures and injunctions, référé, provisional measures and enforcement

Interim measures IP France give rights-holders the ability to stop harm before a full trial. In référé and provisional proceedings, the court weighs the strength of your right against the disruption an order would cause. To obtain interim relief you should be ready to show prima facie proof of the right, registration or title where relevant, credible evidence of infringement, urgency where required, and a risk of harm that damages alone would not adequately repair.

Evidence quality is decisive. Screenshots and captures establish the infringement; transaction data and chain-of-distribution evidence establish scale and continuing harm; platform correspondence shows that voluntary routes were tried or refused. Technical reports and expert evidence materially strengthen an application, particularly where the infringement is subtle or the volume of sales is contested. Courts also weigh online takedowns against freedom of trade and expression, so a proportionate, well-targeted request, for example, removal of identified listings and disclosure of the seller behind them, is more likely to succeed than an over-broad demand.

Provisional proceedings can also deliver disclosure orders that unmask sellers and expose financial flows, feeding directly into the merits case. Rights-holders should anticipate that the court may require a security or guarantee in some circumstances, and should budget for it. Enforcement of the order, ensuring the platform actually removes and keeps down the content, and hands over the data, is part of the same exercise, and non-compliance can be met with an astreinte (a periodic penalty payment) or further judicial pressure.

Comparison table, platform disclosure order vs saisie-contrefaçon vs EU cooperation measures

Cross-border enforcement and jurisdictional traps

Online infringement rarely respects borders, and the effectiveness of online IP enforcement france often depends on getting jurisdiction right. Within the EU, jurisdiction is governed principally by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast), and French courts will commonly have jurisdiction where the harm is felt in France, for instance, where infringing goods are marketed to or delivered to French consumers, even if the seller or the platform is established elsewhere. The location of the accessible infringing content and the targeting of the French market are key factors, and the extent of the jurisdiction (and the reach of any relief) depends on the type of right and the applicable case law.

Where content or data must be preserved across several Member States, EU cooperation instruments provide coordination, and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU shapes how far intermediaries can be required to act and how injunctions may be framed. Enforcing a French order against a global platform is generally more straightforward where the platform maintains an EU establishment and complies with EU rules, but becomes harder where infringers and data sit outside the EU. In those situations, rights-holders may need to combine French judicial measures with foreign disclosure mechanisms and international cooperation channels, accepting that these add time. The practical lesson is to plan jurisdiction and enforceability at the outset, not after an order is obtained.

Costs, timings and risk management, realistic timelines

Timelines vary by complexity and court schedule, but realistic expectations help manage stakeholders. A platform takedown can resolve in hours to days where the notice is compliant and the platform responsive. A preservation request can be actioned quickly, though disclosure of seller data usually awaits a court order that may take days to weeks. A référé can produce provisional relief within days to a few weeks depending on urgency. A saisie-contrefaçon requires court authorisation, typically days to weeks, followed by execution and prompt follow-on proceedings on the merits. Costs are driven by expert fees, commissaire de justice costs and litigation expenses, and rights-holders should budget for a potential guarantee or security in provisional proceedings.

The single biggest factor affecting speed is preparation: cases with clean title evidence, well-captured infringement proof and a coherent strategy move fastest.

Case studies and recent jurisprudence

French jurisprudence continues to refine how intermediaries are treated and how evidential and provisional measures operate online. The broader trajectory of French and EU decisions reinforces several practical points: the importance of precise, well-evidenced notices; the courts’ willingness to grant targeted disclosure and preservation against intermediaries where necessity and proportionality are shown; and the continuing distinction between passive hosts and more active platforms when assessing liability and the scope of orders. Practitioners should read each decision in full on the official sources (Légifrance and the Cour de cassation and CURIA websites) rather than relying on secondary summaries, because the exact holdings determine how far a given measure can be pushed.

Before relying on any specific ruling in a matter, confirm its identifiers, date and reasoning against the official judgment text.

Practical next steps and templates for online IP enforcement france

Turning strategy into action for online IP enforcement france means having your materials ready before the infringement escalates. Prepare a 72-hour checklist so your team knows the exact capture-and-notice sequence; a preservation request template addressed to platforms; a platform disclosure checklist listing the data and metadata to demand; and a saisie-contrefaçon readiness checklist covering court authorisation, engagement of a commissaire de justice and technical execution. For bespoke assistance in structuring an enforcement campaign or preparing an application, contact Global Law Experts to be connected with a specialist adviser.

Conclusion

Successful online IP enforcement france in 2026 is a matter of sequence and evidence: act within the first 72 hours, combine platform cooperation under the DSA with French judicial remedies, and preserve the proof you will need before it disappears. Platform takedowns, disclosure orders, saisie-contrefaçon and interim injunctions are complementary tools, and the strongest campaigns deploy them in a coordinated plan rather than in isolation. This guide is general information and not legal advice; for case-specific strategy, contact Global Law Experts to be connected with a specialist adviser who can tailor an enforcement plan to your rights and your market.

Sources

1. Legifrance, Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI)
2. Legifrance, Code de procédure civile (CPC)
3. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)
4. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast)
5. European Commission, Digital Services Act (DSA) policy page
6. Arcom, French Digital Services Coordinator
7. Cour de cassation (Official site)
8. Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI)
9. CURIA (Court of Justice of the European Union)
10. Journal Officiel / Legifrance