Why Your French Opposition Needs Counsel, Not Just a Filing Service

A French trademark opposition looks, from the outside, like an administrative formality at the national PTO (the INPI). It is decided like a contested case. Deadlines that do not move, a record you cannot supplement on appeal, an oral hearing most parties never request, and an appeal court that reviews only the legality of what the office already decided — every stage turns on a legal judgment call. US counsel sending a French or EU conflict to a low-cost “filing service” often discover, too late, that the cheap route spent the one chance to build the case. Here is where the decisions actually get made, following a file from clearance to the Court of Appeal.

Before the opposition: avoid it

The surest way not to lose an opposition is not to have one. Before filing, a clearance search — identical or full-similarity, scaled to the budget — surfaces the prior rights that could ground an opposition or an infringement action while there is still time to react: change the sign, narrow the goods, or pick another name. Whether your mark is a coined word or a dictionary word is beside the point; invented signs are not immune from prior rights. A serious search is, as a matter of arithmetic, the most profitable investment in a mark’s life cycle.

Filing or receiving: a short deadline, standing to verify

An opposition must be filed within two months of publication of the contested application in the official bulletin (Art. L. 712-4). The deadline does not extend — which is why a proper trademark watch matters: without it, the window closes and the right to oppose is simply gone. That is already stricter than the extendable TTAB opposition period US counsel are used to.

The 2019 reform widened the grounds well beyond earlier marks — company names, trade names, signs, non-local domain names, geographical indications, even the name of a local authority. But you must have standing (Art. L. 712-4-1), and — too often overlooked — the earlier mark must still be in force and properly renewed. Each right invoked carries its own fee (in France, on the order of €400 for the first plus €150 for a second), so pleading several grounds costs more but hedges: if one falls, another may stand. French procedure expressly recognizes the attorney as an authorized representative, dispensed from filing a power of attorney, and representation becomes mandatory for parties with no domicile or seat in the European Economic Area (Art. R. 712-2) — a rule that catches most US-based owners.

The instruction phase: written, adversarial, unforgiving

The core of the case is a written, adversarial exchange on a strict calendar (Art. R. 712-16-1): the applicant gets two months to respond, then each round runs one month, up to three sets of observations each, with the applicant speaking last. Miss a deadline and the filing is not considered. Procedural rigor here is the merits.

This is where the work lives. Proving — or refuting — likelihood of confusion means a double comparison, of the signs (visual, aural, conceptual) and of the goods and services, in a global, interdependent assessment where strong sign similarity can offset weaker goods similarity, and vice versa. Identifying the dominant element, anticipating the overall impression that will lodge in the consumer’s memory, ordering the arguments — that is the craft that decides most oppositions.

The applicant also holds a specific weapon: in its first observations only, it can require the opponent to prove genuine use of any earlier mark registered more than five years ago (Art. L. 712-5-1). Made unambiguously, the request shifts the battle from law to facts — see our analysis of proof of use — onto ground the other side has not always prepared.

Negotiate: settlement, at any time

Not every opposition ends in a decision. At any stage the parties can settle: a coexistence agreement, a limitation of the contested specification, a partial withdrawal, even a refiled amended mark. The procedure protects the negotiating window — on joint request, the instruction can be suspended in four-month periods, renewable twice (twelve months total, Art. R. 712-17). This is where a clear-eyed assessment of the odds pays: when the likely outcome is sign similarity, it is often better to negotiate the scope of the goods than to wait a year for a refusal. See amicable settlement of trademark disputes.

Plead: the oral hearing few request

Many overlook it: an INPI opposition can include an oral hearing. Each party may ask to be heard, provided it said so clearly in its written observations; the office may also convene the parties. The hearing takes place after the written phase, before a panel, in French, with no new argument or evidence admitted — you plead the file as it stands. In a complex case, a focused oral argument can tip the balance.

Appeal: annulment only — and to the right court

The office decides within a set period running from the close of instruction. Counter-intuitively, if it does not rule in time, the opposition is deemed rejected (Art. L. 712-5): silence favors the applicant. The decision is challenged not before a first-instance court but directly before a Court of Appeal (Art. L. 411-4), and here the attorney’s role becomes a monopoly — representation is mandatory (Art. R. 411-22). The deadline is one month from notification, extended for residents overseas or abroad.

Which court? Not all are competent. Ten Courts of Appeal are specially designated for INPI trademark appeals — Aix-en-Provence, Bordeaux, Colmar, Douai, Fort-de-France, Lyon, Nancy, Paris, Rennes and Versailles — and the competent one is that of the appellant’s residence; appellants resident abroad go to the Paris Court of Appeal.

The decisive point is the nature of the appeal. It is an annulment review, not a rehearing: the court checks the legality of the INPI’s decision on the same evidence and arguments. As the Paris Court of Appeal recently restated, “appeals against decisions of the Director General of the INPI are appeals for annulment and not for reformation” (CA Paris, 08/11/2023, RG 21/20502, RECREA / RECREA FUN). Unlike a nullity or revocation action — reviewed as a rehearing, where new evidence is allowed — an opposition appeal admits no new exhibits. In April 2025 the same court struck from the file a long list of documents produced for the first time on appeal (CA Paris, 11/04/2025, RG 24/00494, T’CHOUPI / EXTRA PREMIUM Choupi).

Point of attention

The evidentiary record is built before the INPI, not on appeal. Anything not filed during instruction can never be filed later. That single rule is why involving counsel at the start — clearance, then instruction — beats calling once the decision has landed.

For US counsel

An INPI opposition is closer to a mini-litigation than to a TTAB form exchange, and its two hardest edges are foreign to US practice: the record closes at the office (no de novo appeal to build on), and there is no discovery to repair a thin file. Treat the first round of observations as the whole case, not a placeholder. A filing service fills in fields; the strategic choices — which rights to invoke, when to demand proof of use, whether to negotiate a limitation, which court to appeal to — are where the file is won or lost. And because the best dispute is the one you anticipated and avoided, counsel’s most valuable work is still the earliest.

Key takeaways

• The opposition deadline is two months from publication and does not extend.
• Instruction is written and adversarial; demand proof of use in the first observations or not at all.
• Settlement is available throughout, with suspension of up to twelve months.
• The appeal is annulment-only before one of ten designated courts — no new evidence — so build the record at the INPI.

Applicable law

Arts. L. 712-4, L. 712-4-1, L. 712-5, L. 712-5-1, R. 712-2, R. 712-14, R. 712-16-1 and R. 712-17 (opposition and instruction); Arts. L. 411-4, R. 411-19, R. 411-21, R. 411-22 and R. 411-38 (annulment appeal, distinct from reformation), French Intellectual Property Code.

Decisions cited

French decisions are searchable on Pappers Justice.