Enforcement & Litigation
A French infringement suit runs on written briefs before professional judges — no jury, no discovery, loser pays. What US counsel should know before filing, or after a client is served.
All trademark litigation in France belongs exclusively to the judicial courts (tribunaux judiciaires); no other French court can hear a trademark case. Representation by a French attorney (avocat) is mandatory before the Judicial Court. For EU trademark cases, the Paris Judicial Court has exclusive jurisdiction as France’s EU trademark court — so a pan-European infringement claim based on an EUTM will, on the French side, be a Paris case.
Three structural differences from US litigation shape everything else:
The French infringement suit begins with the assignation — the writ of summons. It is the act that opens the trial, and it does far more work than a US complaint:
One trap deserves emphasis for US teams used to notice pleading and liberal amendment: if the defendant defaults — does not appoint an avocat to appear — the plaintiff cannot add exhibits or modify its claims without serving a new writ. Only the text of the writ actually served on the defendant can be taken into account by the judge. The assignation must therefore be complete and self-sufficient on day one, damages theory included.
The writ is also, in practice, a negotiation event: it is often the prelude to more intense negotiations between counsel that can still end in an amicable settlement.
Once the case is enrolled, the court schedules it and opens the mise en état — the written pretrial phase, run by a case-management judge, during which the parties exchange briefs (conclusions) and exhibits until the case is ready for the pleading hearing.
The defendant must appoint an avocat before the Judicial Court (the constitution d’avocat — the act by which a French attorney informs the court that it represents a party). The defendant then responds to the writ with its own conclusions; the plaintiff replies; and in a straightforward case the parties confine themselves to two rounds of briefs each. The case is argued at a single pleading hearing before professional judges, and the court issues a written judgment.
Count on roughly one to two years to obtain a first-instance judgment — sometimes longer, depending on the defendant’s procedural choices and the court’s calendar. Interim measures exist for urgent situations, and the pressure of the procedure itself frequently produces settlement before judgment.
Suing for infringement allows the trademark owner to seek:
Because damages track proven harm, the evidence strategy and the damages strategy are the same workstream. This is where the absence of discovery bites hardest, and where the saisie-contrefaçon and bailiff reports earn their cost.
If a US company is served with a French assignation, the clock is running and default is a bad option — remember that the plaintiff’s writ, and only the writ, will then frame the judgment.
Our recommendation on receiving a writ: commission an audit from a trademark litigation specialist — a rapid, summary review of the documents received, followed by a one-hour meeting to explain the situation and map the options. Those options range from amicable settlement and negotiation, to defending all or only some of the points raised, to going on the offensive: procedural incidents, counterclaims (for instance challenging the validity of the plaintiff’s mark), or separate proceedings before the INPI or the EUIPO attacking the plaintiff’s registrations. See opposition and cancellation before the EUIPO and before the INPI for the administrative side of that toolbox.
An infringement trial is a heavy procedure requiring real investment: attorney fees, bailiff costs, expert costs, and procedural charges. Two honest points about budgeting it:
For a defendant, a quote requires reading the writ received, reviewing the main exhibits where available, and discussing the possible response, stakes, and options with the client — which is exactly what the initial audit covers. Fees can be billed in EUR or USD; our fee structure starts from €[VERIFY: starting amount for the initial audit / writ — no figures in the French source pages] — see trademark fees and costs for how we quote enforcement work. The loser-pays rule cuts both ways and belongs in every cost-benefit memo: it improves the economics of a strong case and worsens those of a weak one.
First-instance judgments can be appealed, and the dispute is not necessarily over at judgment — settlement remains possible at any stage, including on appeal. [VERIFY: appeal deadline and appellate procedure specifics — not covered in the French source pages.] Selected outcomes from our practice are described on our results page.
Weighing a French infringement suit — or served with one? Contact us for a rapid assessment before positions harden.
What counts as trademark infringement in France and the EU, available remedies, and strategic options — explained for US in-house counsel and law firms.
Sending or answering a French trademark cease-and-desist (mise en demeure): content, confidentiality rules, and how to respond — for US counsel.
No discovery in France: how infringement evidence is really built — bailiff reports, saisie-contrefaçon, online proof — explained for US counsel.
Settlement, coexistence agreements, and mediation in French and EU trademark disputes: when to negotiate, how confidentiality helps, and what deals hold.