Choosing a Mark
City names, mountain names, regional names — place names make evocative brands, and they can be registered in France and the EU. But only if you understand exactly where the descriptiveness line runs, and how to cross it with evidence.
Yes — a US company can register a city or place name as a trademark in France or the EU, including the name of a French place. There is no per se bar on geographic terms. What French law prohibits, under Article L. 711-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, is a sign consisting exclusively of indications that can serve, in trade, to designate a characteristic of the goods or services — and geographic origin is one of the characteristics expressly listed, alongside kind, quality, quantity, purpose and value.
US practitioners will recognize the family resemblance to a “primarily geographically descriptive” refusal under Section 2(e)(2) of the Lanham Act. The mechanics, however, are not identical — and the differences are where the opportunities lie.
The INPI does not refuse a mark merely because it contains a place name. Recent INPI decisions apply a consistent standard: to find a sign descriptive, there must be a “direct and concrete link” between the sign and the goods or services, perceived immediately and without further reflection by the relevant French consumer.
Two consequences follow for place names:
The same “direct and concrete link” discipline runs through the INPI’s non-geographic cases — e.g., INPI, June 13, 2022, NL 21-0119 — AIRADVANCED, where even terms individually understandable to French consumers were held non-descriptive because their combination had no immediately perceptible meaning for the goods.
Article L. 711-2 also bars signs liable to deceive the public, notably as to the nature, quality or geographic origin of the goods or services. A place-name mark that clears the descriptiveness hurdle can still fail here if the goods do not actually come from the named place and the public would care. US counsel will recognize the cousin doctrine — geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks under Section 2(e)(3). For a US company adopting a French or European place name for products made elsewhere, this is usually the issue to underwrite most carefully before filing — it belongs in the pre-filing analysis of the sign.
Here is the strategic heart of the matter. A place name that is descriptive of geographic origin can nonetheless be registered — and defended — through acquired distinctiveness through use, the French and EU counterpart to Section 2(f).
The leading illustration in recent INPI practice is INPI, Oct. 28, 2021, NL 21-0071 — BRASSERIE DU MONT BLANC. The mark — initially descriptive of geographic origin for beers — survived an invalidity attack because its owner proved intensive use: sales growing from 4 million to 18 million bottles between 2014 and 2019, numerous competition awards, and constant use since 1999. The INPI found that these elements, taken globally, established intense use of the sign for beers across a significant part of French territory, together with national and international recognition.
Two lessons from the decision deserve emphasis:
Relatedly, use can also reinforce an already-valid mark: in INPI, Dec. 30, 2021, NL 21-0126 — SEL CRISTAL, the INPI recognized that Champagne Louis Roederer’s CRISTAL mark enjoyed enhanced distinctiveness through long-standing, constant and substantial use on the French territory. Strength acquired through use pays dividends later, in oppositions and infringement actions.
For the full doctrinal picture — including the three statutory hypotheses in which use can cure an initial defect — see our article on absolute grounds of validity.
One French particularity has no close US equivalent: under Article L. 711-3, I, 9° and 10° of the Intellectual Property Code, French local authorities (regions, departments, municipalities and their groupings) and public entities enjoy protection against trademarks that exploit their name or image without authorization. This is a relative ground — raised by the entity, not by the INPI of its own motion — but it means that adopting the name of a French city is not only a descriptiveness question; it can draw an opposition or invalidity action from the city itself. Clearance for a place-name mark should always include this check.
A brief but important distinction. Protected designations of origin and geographical indications (AOC/AOP, IGP) are a separate legal regime: collective signs guaranteeing that products come from a defined area and meet a specification, protected under Article L. 711-3, I, 5° against trademarks that incorporate or evoke them. A place-name trademark is the opposite animal — a private, exclusive right identifying one company. The two regimes interact (a GI can block a trademark), but registering a place name as a trademark neither requires nor creates any GI-style guarantee of origin. Do not let the vocabulary blur the analysis.
For place-name strategies, we often recommend anchoring the program on a French national registration rather than going straight to an EU trademark — for reasons that follow directly from the law above:
Considering a city or place name for a European launch? Contact us — this is a category where the filing strategy genuinely changes the outcome.
How to choose a protectable sign and draft the goods and services for a French or EU trademark filing — a Paris practitioner's guide for US counsel.
Distinctiveness, descriptiveness, deceptiveness and acquired distinctiveness before the INPI — absolute grounds in France, explained for US counsel.
Prior marks, reputed marks, company names, likelihood of confusion: how third-party rights defeat French trademarks, and why watching is essential.
How French law handles genericide: revocation under Article L. 714-6 CPI, the RAPIDO decision, dictionary corrections, and the owner's compliance playbook.