France’s 2019 PACTE law introduced new administrative procedures for trademark invalidity and revocation , which came into force on 1 April 2020. This reform was a cornerstone of the modernization of industrial property enforcement: it aimed to make trademark law more accessible, faster, and less costly. The objectives were clear: to give businesses, especially SMEs, the tools to defend their rights more efficiently, to clear the register of unused or abusive marks, and to prevent trademarks from unfairly blocking market access or harming the public interest. Five years later, the French IP Office (INPI) has published its assessment in the report “ Cinq ans déjà ! Les procédures de nullité et de déchéance des marques devant l’INPI ”. The results show a system that has been widely adopted and is now a stable part of the French trademark landscape. A Procedure Embraced by Businesses Since 2020, nearly 2,200 applications for invalidity or revocation have been filed before the INPI, with more than 1,800 decisions delivered. The a nnual average—around 440 cases —is well above the level seen before judicial courts prior to the reform. SMEs are major users of the system, filing over 35% of applications, while foreign companies have also relied heavily on it. On the defence side, 38% of respondents are SMEs and 37% are individuals. Although professional representation is not mandatory, almost 90% of applicants are assisted by counsel. Lawyers are present in 51% of cases, industrial property attorneys in 41%. Stable and Efficient Litigation Framework Applications are split between invalidity (60%) and revocation (40%) . Within invalidity, 70% are based on relative grounds such as earlier trademarks, while absolute grounds like lack of distinctiveness or bad faith remain less common. Bad faith is a notable trend : more than 150 decisions have been issued on this basis since 2020, with a success rate of around 50%. Fraudulent filings are alleged in over 20% of invalidity actions. For revocation, non-use remains the overwhelming ground , though around 30 cases have also concerned degeneration or deceptive use. Duration and Outcomes The average duration of proceedings is 8.5 months . Uncontested cases can be resolved in 7 months, while complex disputes may last up to 17 months. The results are decisive: in 85% of cases, applications are deemed justified . More than 1,000 trademarks have been annulled or revoked since 2020. Around 30% of cases are closed following amicable settlements, and only 3% end in inadmissibility. Relative grounds: Over 85% of prior trademark claims succeed , including claims based on well-known marks. Company names: Only half of claims succeed, while other signs (domain names, trade names) often fail due to lack of proof or legal basis. Absolute grounds: Just 30% succeed (excluding bad faith), often because of evidentiary challenges . The INPI also rules on costs: in over half of the cases, the losing party is ordered to pay, with an average cost award of €680. Conclusion: A Maturing and Trusted System Five years after its introduction, the administrative procedure for invalidity and revocation has reached maturity. The high level of adoption, particularly by SMEs, and the strong success rate of actions confirm its effectiveness. The INPI’s system has become a trusted and efficient alternative to judicial litigation— faster, less costly, and widely accessible . For businesses navigating trademark strategy in France, it is now an indispensable tool. Clara Courret, Trainee Lawyer Christine Chai, Managing Partner, Attorney-at-Law

On 25 June 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered an important judgment in case T-239/23, annulling a decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal and refusing registration of the EU trademark “ NERO CHAMPAGNE ” for wines and related services. This ruling strengthens the legal framework protecting Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) , particularly the world-renowned Champagne . Background of the Case In 2019, Nero Lifestyle SRL (Italy) applied to register the word mark “NERO CHAMPAGNE” covering: Class 33: wines, Class 35: retail and advertising services, Class 41: educational and cultural activities. The application explicitly referenced wines compliant with the Champagne PDO specifications. The application was opposed by the Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC) and the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) under: Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) , read with Article 103(2)(a)(ii) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (agricultural product markets). These provisions prohibit both the exploitation and the misleading use of PDOs—even when the goods technically comply with PDO specifications. Initially, the EUIPO upheld the opposition in part, but the Board of Appeal allowed registration for wines conforming to the Champagne PDO and related services . CIVC and INAO challenged this before the General Court. The Court’s Key Findings 1. Misapplication of the “Limitation Theory” The Board of Appeal relied on internal EUIPO guidelines assuming that a trademark limited to PDO-compliant goods cannot exploit the PDO’s reputation. The Court rejected this approach as legally flawed. It stressed that Article 103(2)(a)(ii) applies regardless of conformity with PDO specifications. A case-by-case assessment is always required to determine whether a trademark exploits a PDO’s reputation . 2. Exploitation of Champagne’s Reputation Even if used on PDO-compliant goods, a trademark may still evoke or unfairly benefit from the image and reputation of Champagne. The Board of Appeal failed to examine whether “NERO CHAMPAGNE” misled consumers or diluted Champagne’s distinctiveness and prestige. 3. Lack of Adequate Reasoning The Court also found a violation of Article 94(1) EUTMR and Article 296 TFEU. The Board had not adequately addressed the opponents’ arguments, such as: the marketing context, the evocative power of the word “nero” (Italian for “black”), the risk of consumer deception. 4. Misleading Nature of “Nero” Champagne The Court highlighted that “nero” could suggest the existence of a “ black Champagne ” or a product exclusively based on Pinot Noir grapes—both contrary to the Champagne PDO, which only authorises white or rosé wines. Such a representation could therefore mislead consumers regarding the nature and composition of the product. The Outcome The General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision and refused registration of “NERO CHAMPAGNE” in its entirety for Classes 33, 35 and 41. Why This Matters This decision is a milestone in PDO enforcement at the EU level. It clarifies that: Conformity with PDO specifications is not a shield against legal scrutiny . PDO holders are entitled to defend both the reputation and the integrity of their designations. Trademarks incorporating PDOs require rigorous analysis of consumer perception, reputation exploitation, and the risk of misleading associations . For brand owners, the ruling underscores the high level of protection accorded to PDOs like Champagne and highlights the risks of adopting marks that evoke or exploit these designations. Key Takeaway The “NERO CHAMPAGNE” judgment reaffirms the EU’s strict stance on PDO misuse. It sends a clear message: even technically compliant goods cannot be marketed under trademarks that trade on or distort the image of PDOs . PDO holders thus remain well-equipped to safeguard the prestige and distinctiveness of their products across the EU.  Clara Courret, Trainee Lawyer Christine Chai, Managing Partner, Attorney-at-Law