Glossary
French: opposition INPI
An INPI opposition is an opposition filed with the INPI against a French trademark application — or against the French designation of an international registration. To be admissible, it must be filed within two months of publication of the contested application in the BOPI. Two months, non-extendable: for US owners used to the TTAB’s extendable 30-day window, this is the deadline that makes a trademark watch indispensable.
An INPI opposition may rely on one or several grounds (earlier rights). Official fees: €400 for one ground, €550 for two, and €150 for each additional ground beyond the first.
The opposition can be based on an earlier trademark, whether registered or not yet — if the earlier mark is still a pending application, the opposition is suspended until it registers. Other prior rights can also be invoked: a company name and, under certain conditions, a trade name, shop sign or domain name. Copyright cannot support an INPI opposition (unlike an invalidity action or litigation).
If the earlier mark relied on has been registered for more than five years at the time the contested application was published, the applicant can require the opponent to produce evidence of genuine use of that earlier mark for the goods and services on which the opposition is based — the same five-year threshold that triggers revocation for non-use. An opponent who cannot show genuine use, or a legitimate reason for non-use, will see the opposition dismissed on that ground alone, regardless of how similar the signs are.
Depending on how the proceedings unfold, total duration ranges from six months to a year on average, structured around an exchange of written submissions between the parties before the INPI issues a decision. The procedure can be suspended by joint request of the parties — suspensions designed to foster amicable settlement, typically through a coexistence agreement.
The INPI can refuse the opposed application but cannot award damages or enjoin use — for that, see trademark infringement in France. Either party can appeal the INPI’s decision to a Cour d’appel, which reviews the case on the merits; this is the one point in the process where the dispute can move from the administrative office to a court.
The closest US equivalent is a TTAB opposition proceeding, but the two diverge sharply on timing and procedure. Both are triggered by publication for opposition, but the TTAB’s window is extendable by the would-be opponent, while the INPI’s two-month window is not — which pushes French practice toward earlier and more disciplined watching. The INPI proceeding is also decided by the office itself on the written submissions, without the discovery, depositions and trial briefs that characterize TTAB inter partes proceedings, which makes an INPI opposition materially faster and cheaper to run than its US counterpart, at the cost of a thinner evidentiary record when the case is close.
A French cosmetics company notices, through a trademark watch, the publication of a new French application whose name is confusingly similar to its own registered mark for identical goods. Provided it files within the two-month window, it can oppose on likelihood of confusion alone; but if the applicant later requests proof of use and the opponent’s mark is more than five years old, the opponent will also need to produce invoices, catalogs or advertising evidence showing genuine use before the merits are even reached.
This is the procedure at the center of most French trademark disputes: see trademark opposition before the INPI for the full strategy, responding to a trademark opposition if you are on the receiving end, and amicable settlement of trademark disputes for how a coexistence agreement can resolve a pending opposition. On the glossary side, see EUIPO opposition and likelihood of confusion.