Trademark law, a key pillar of intellectual property rights, protects distinctive signs and brand identifiers from unauthorized use. Under Article L713-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, the owner of a registered trademark has the exclusive right to exploit it and decide whether to authorize third parties to reproduce or imitate it. Use of the mark without such authorization constitutes infringement. A recent ruling by the Paris Court of Appeal on October 16, 2024, offers a clear illustration of how the courts apply these principles — even to something as seemingly minor as a business card. In this case, the company SUD GESTION, owner of the trademarks A+ GLASS and A+ GLASS LE TRAVAIL BIEN FAIT, accused two companies, ALPHA GLASS and ALLO VITRAGE AUTO, of trademark infringement. According to SUD GESTION, the defendants used its trademarks on business cards distributed to potential customers, creating confusion and misleading the public into believing they were still part of the A+ GLASS franchise network — even though that business relationship had ended. The allegations were supported by multiple witness statements and a bailiff’s report confirming the distribution of business cards displaying the A+ GLASS logo. In its defence, ALLO VITRAGE AUTO argued that it had no fraudulent intent. The company claimed it had used the A+ GLASS trademark in good faith, believing it was part of the franchise after receiving contractual documents and undergoing training provided by SUD GESTION. It contended that it only learned later that the franchise agreement could not proceed due to conflicts with SUD GESTION. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected this defence, reaffirming a key principle: u nauthorized use of a sign identical or similar to a registered trademark constitutes infringement when there is a likelihood of confusion, regardless of the user’s intent . In short, bad faith or fraudulent intent is not required to establish trademark infringement under French law. The Court therefore prohibited ALPHA GLASS and ALLO VITRAGE AUTO from continuing to use the disputed trademarks and ordered them to pay damages jointly to SUD GESTION. This ruling serves as an important reminder: any unauthorized use of a sign that creates confusion with a registered trademark amounts to infringement, even when done in apparent good faith . It underscores the need for businesses to be vigilant about how they use third-party trademarks and reinforces the importance for trademark owners to actively monitor and protect their rights to safeguard their brand identity and market reputation. Marco Mouchot, Trainee Lawyer Christine Chai, Managing Partner, Attorney-at-Law

Liability for defective products is a legal framework designed to compensate victims for damage caused by product defects, acting as a key consumer protection mechanism against producers. At the heart of this regime lies the concept of the producer , which is crucial in determining who bears liability. Under European Directive 85/374/EEC, any producer is liable for damages resulting from a defective product, provided the harm stems from the defect. Article 3(1) of the Directive defines the producer broadly: it includes the manufacturer of a finished product, raw material, or component part , as well as any person who presents themselves as the producer by affixing their name, trademark , or other distinguishing sign to the product. This notion of producer was recently clarified and broadened by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a judgment delivered on 19 December 2024 , extending the scope of supplier responsibility under EU law. The Case: Ford Italia SpA Before the Courts The case involved the owner of a Ford vehicle who sued both Stracciari, the Italian dealer, and Ford Italia, the distributor, after an accident caused by the failure of the vehicle’s airbag to deploy — a failure attributed to a manufacturing defect. The vehicle in question had been produced by Ford WAG, a company established in Germany, and then supplied to Stracciari through Ford Italia, which distributes in Italy vehicles produced by Ford WAG. Although both the court of first instance and the Bologna Court of Appeal found Ford Italia liable, the company appealed to the Italian Court of Cassation. Ford Italia argued that as a mere distributor, uninvolved in manufacturing, it should be exempt from liability — especially since the identity of the actual manufacturer was known. It further claimed that the lower courts had given an overly broad interpretation of the Directive. The Italian Court of Cassation referred the matter to the CJEU, asking whether a distributor could be considered a producer even if it had not physically affixed its trademark to the product, particularly when the distributor’s name or trade name coincided wholly or partly with the manufacturer’s brand or another distinguishing sign. The CJEU’s Ruling: A Broad Interpretation of “Producer” The CJEU answered affirmatively, holding that the notion of producer under Article 3(1) is not limited to the manufacturer. It can extend to any person who presents themselves as a producer, whether explicitly (by affixing their name or brand) or implicitly, such as through the coincidence of trade names . In this case, the Court found that the similarity between Ford Italia’s name and the Ford brand was sufficient to qualify the distributor as presenting itself as the producer, even in the absence of physical markings on the product. Impact: Strengthened Consumer Protection and Expanded Supplier Liability This ruling underscores the broad and consumer-protective approach of EU law. By treating distributors who share or use the producer’s brand as producers themselves, the Court eases the burden on consumers, who no longer need to precisely identify the manufacturer to claim compensation. For distributors and suppliers, the decision serves as a warning: exploiting a shared or group brand can expose them to joint and several liability, effectively placing them on equal footing with manufacturers when it comes to defective product claims . This reinforces the need for careful brand management and greater vigilance within corporate groups. Marco Mouchot, Trainee Lawyer Christine Chai, Managing Partner, Attorney-at-Law

The liability of hosting platforms has undergone significant legislative developments in recent years. In France, it is currently governed by the Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN) of 2004, as amended in 2016, and by the Digital Services Act (DSA) adopted on February, 14 2024. Most recently, the notion of host liability was at the heart of a dispute between the company Nintendo and Dstorage before the French Supreme Court (Cour de la cassation). DStorage operates a hosting service through its website 1fichier.com, which allows users to freely download online content, including video games from the well-known companies Nintendo, The Pokémon Company, and GameFreak. After discovering the links to download unauthorized copies of some of its games (Super Mario Maker for 3DS, and Pokémon Sun and Pokémon Moon), Nintendo sent two notifications to DStorage, requesting the removal of the content. The case was brought before the Paris Court of Appeal, which, in a ruling dated April 12, 2023, found that DStorage had failed, in its capacity as host, to comply with its obligation of prompt removal, following the notifications sent by Nintendo. Dstorage claimed to be merely a storage service provider and appealed to the Court of Cassation. It contested the removal obligation, arguing that the appeal court had imposed a general monitoring duty, contrary to the requirements of Article 6-I-7 of the LCEN. It also challenged the validity of the notification, asserting that they did not identify the authors of the disputed content, failed to distinguish between the authors and the platform’s users, and did not specify the unlawful nature of the content. In its decision on 26 February 2025, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal. It ruled that the notifications sent by Nintendo satisfied the conditions set out in the LCEN. The notifications included a precise description of the infringing content, which was clearly identified and associated with registered trademarks. The Court further stated that Nintendo was not required to demonstrate any steps taken against the content authors, as they were not identifiable, and that the removal order issued by the Court of Appeal amounted to targeted, temporary monitoring of specific content. With this decision, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed the reduced liability regime applicable to hosting providers under Article 6-I-2 of the LCEN, which remains conditional on compliance with specific requirements, notably a prompt response following a valid notification. It reiterated that: A notification is valid when it includes a detailed description and clear identification of the content ; Identifying the author of the content is not required if they are not identifiable; A host incurs liability if it fails to act promptly after receiving a valid notification . This decision confirms that hosting providers remain protected under limited liability rules only if they act promptly upon receiving clear and specific infringement notices. As the DSA takes effect, the DStorage case sets a clear precedent: inaction in the face of valid notifications will no longer be tolerated. Marco Mouchot, Trainee Lawyer Christine Chai, Managing Partner, Attorney-at-Law

DeepSeek: The New AI Sensation Faces Regulatory Heat Just Days After Record-Breaking Launch

On April 16, 2025, Christine Chai, partner at Aurilex, was invited to speak at the seminar “ China–Europe Intellectual Property Protection in Practice: A Dual Perspective on Compliance and Risk Mitigation ,” jointly organized by Aurilex and Shanghai Sunhold Law Firm. The event brought together legal professionals from both Europe and China, offering in-depth analysis and practical guidance for companies navigating intellectual property (IP) protection across borders. As the representative speaker on European IP practice, Christine Chai delivered a detailed presentation covering the legal frameworks, registration strategies, and enforcement challenges businesses typically face when entering the European market. Navigating Dual Systems: EU-Wide vs. National IP Protections Christine highlighted the complexity of Europe’s IP system, which combines EU-wide mechanisms (such as EUTM and EPO filings) with country-specific rules. She emphasized the importance for businesses to align their IP strategies with this dual-layered structure. “For example,” she noted, “the actual use requirement under the EU Trademark Regulation means that companies must plan not only for registration but for active, timely use in the market.” Trade Fair Injunctions: A Real and Growing Risk Christine also warned Chinese companies about the increasing use of emergency injunctions during trade fairs in France and other EU countries. “There have been multiple cases where exhibitors faced injunctions on-site, resulting in booth closures and seizure of displayed goods. Without preemptive IP audits, companies expose themselves to serious operational disruptions,” she explained. The UPC: Centralization Comes with Strategy Shifts Addressing recent developments, Christine discussed the impact of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on enforcement strategy in Europe. While the UPC offers streamlined litigation across multiple EU member states, it also requires companies to make deliberate choices between centralized and national enforcement routes. Joint Dialogue: Cross-Border Action Checklists During the joint dialogue session, Christine collaborated with the Chinese legal team to provide practical compliance checklists for cross-border business activities. She advised Chinese companies to: Conduct prior trademark and patent clearance in target EU countries; Evaluate whether to opt in or out of the UPC system; Prepare legal strategies in case of emergency injunctions or enforcement challenges. Likewise, she shared insights for European companies expanding into China, particularly on navigating local IP enforcement procedures and understanding the nuances of evidence collection in cases involving trade secrets. This seminar highlighted the increasing importance of IP compliance in cross-border business, especially as more Chinese companies “go global” and more European businesses expand into China. Aurilex remains committed to providing in-depth legal support tailored to the needs of international clients operating across jurisdictions.

Aurilex Recognized in WTR 1000: Leading Trademark Professional in 2025

EU design views must be consistent to be valid. A recent decision of the General Court of the EU confirms this requirement.

The General Court clarifies the evidence requirement for trademark use in the EU trademark law in a recent judgement.

CNIL aims to regulate generative AI.