法国实践明确立场：仅提交商标申请在法国不属于侵权行为

根据2021年10月13日19-20504号和19-20959号两项判决，法国最高上诉法院商事庭明确认定申请将标志注册为商标本身不构成侵权行为。在此之前，对于此问题尚无明确认定。这些判决非常重要，为企业和商标所有者提供了急需的明确界定。

By two judgements of October 13, 2021 –No. 19-20504 and No. 19-20959-, the French commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation clearly ruled that the application for registration of a sign as a trade mark does not in itself constitute an act of infringement. These decisions are particularly important and provide much needed clarity for businesses and trade mark owners since previously the question was uncertain.

商标申请本身是否构成侵权行为？此前，这一经常出现的问题并没有得到法国法院的统一答复。事实上，之前的判决体现了两种不同的趋势。

Does the filing of a trade mark in itself constitute an act of infringement? This regularly raised question did not receive a uniform response from French courts. Indeed, there were two diverging trends in previous decisions.

一些法国法院采用了欧洲商标判例法的观点，认为只有在商业经营过程中使用标志，即“在商业活动过程中为了经济利益”使用该标志，才构成侵权（参见2002年11月12日C-206/01“阿森纳足球俱乐部”判决）。因此，法院有时会认定，仅提交商标申请不足以构成侵权行为（参见巴黎高等法院2017年9月21日第16/00723号判决）。

Some French courts applied the reasoning of European Trade Mark case law, considering that there is only infringement when there is use of the sign in the course of trade which refers to the use of the sign ‘in the course of a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage’ (judgment of 12/11/2002, C-206/01, ‘Arsenal Football Club’). As such, it had sometimes been held that the sole filing of a trade mark is therefore insufficient to constitute an act of infringement (High court of Paris, 21/09/2017, No. 16/00723).

然而，最高上诉法院和巴黎上诉法院在几起案件中采取了相反的立场，认定仅提交商标申请就存在侵权行为。最高上诉法院认为，提交一项冲突商标的申请侵犯了在先商标所有人的专有权，因此必然造成损害。在商业经营过程中使用侵权标志被认为并非确定侵权行为的必要条件（2003年11月26日第01-11.784号判决；2016年5月24日第14-17.533号判决）。

However, the Court of Cassation and the Court of Appeal of Paris had adopted a contrary position in several cases, stating that there was infringement by the simple filing of a trade mark application. The Court of Cassation considered that the filing of an application for a conflicting mark infringed the exclusive right of the owner of the earlier mark and, consequently, necessarily caused a damage. The use of the infringing sign in the course of trade was not considered necessary to establish an act of infringement. (Judgment of 26/11/2003, No. 01-11.784; judgement of 24/05/2016, No.14-17.533).

因此，这种情况给商标所有人带来了法律上的不确定性，需要最高上诉法院做出明确裁决，以消除这些疑虑。

Thus, this situation led to legal uncertainty for trade mark owners and the need for a clear ruling from the Court of Cassation to bring an end to these doubts.

在2021年10月13日具有相同目标的两个判决中，最高上诉法院明确地推翻了先前的判例法。法院援引自己的判例法，确认其以前对该法律的解释认为仅仅提交商标申请就可构成侵权行为，并主张应根据欧盟法院的判例法重新考虑这一解释。因此，最高上诉法院明确引用了欧盟法院的戴姆勒判决（2016年3月3日判决，C 179/15），并制定了四个累积标准来定义侵权行为：

In its two judgments of October 13, 2021, which share the same goal, the Court of Cassation explicitly reverses its previous case law. The Court, citing its own case law, confirms that its previous interpretation of the law considered that the mere filing of a trade mark could constitute an act of infringement before asserting that this interpretation should be reconsidered in the light of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Court of Cassation clearly cites the Daimler judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 03/03/2016, C‑179/15) and establishes four cumulative criteria to define an act of infringement:

• 侵权标志必须在商业经营过程中使用；

  the infringing sign must be used in the course of trade;

• 未经在先商标所有人同意；

  in the absence of the consent of the owner of the earlier mark;

• 指定的商品或服务与在先商标指定的商品或服务相同或类似；

  for goods or services identical or similar to those designated by the earlier mark;

• 商标的使用需对公众产生破坏商标基本功能（即标识产源）的混淆可能性。

  and the use must create a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public, which undermines the essential function of the mark, its function of guaranteeing provenance.

因此，在标志下的产品或服务未开始商业化的情况下，仅提交商标申请，无论该申请随后是否注册，并不构成侵权行为。事实上，这种情况对公众并无混淆可能性，因此也不可能侵犯商标标识产源的基本功能。

Consequently, the mere filing of a trade mark, whether or not such application is followed by registration, does not constitute an act of infringement in the absence of any start of commercialisation of products or services under the sign. In fact, in such a case, no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public and therefore no infringement of the essential function of indicating origin of the mark are likely to occur.

如果商标所有人察觉第三方提交了侵权商标申请，且未调查到该商标的使用，则将无法起诉商标侵权。如果商标已使用，则可保留侵权诉讼的权利。

If an owner of a trade mark becomes aware of an infringing trade mark application filed by a third party, for which no use of the sign has been detected, it will not be able to sue for trade mark infringement. An infringement action will therefore be reserved for the case where the mark is also subject of use.

因此，在未确定在后冲突商标已使用的情况下，在先商标的所有者应向法国工业产权局（INPI，即法国商标局）提交异议或无效申请，以期驳回或撤回在后商标。在先商标的所有者应毫不犹豫地采用比法院诉讼费用低的异议和无效程序维护自身权利，这仍然是劝阻商标申请人开始使用商标的好方法。

As such the owner of a conflicting earlier trade mark should file an opposition or an invalidity action against the contested trade mark before the INPI, the French trade mark office, to obtain rejection or withdrawal of the mark where no use of the later mark has been identified. Owners of earlier marks should not hesitate to assert their rights through the opposition and invalidity procedures (which are less expensive than Court proceedings) and this can still be a good way of dissuading trade mark applicants from starting use of the mark.