Skip to main content


Being a trademark owner allows to prohibit third parties from using its mark without his consent.

There are however some exceptions to this monopoly, especially of accessory manufacturers.

Indeed, under Article L.713-6 b) of the Code of intellectual property, the registration of a trademark "does not preclude the use of the same sign or a similar sign as reference necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts, provided there is no confusion in their home. "

In a case between a company A marketing degradable fasteners for viticulture to a specialized company B, it, in the sale of electric linkers, it has been recognized that the first could legitimately refer to the mark of the second.

The idea of ​​A was only the compatibility of its products with the kind of tool offered by company B.

On February 10, the Supreme Court decided not to condemn Company A finding that his only goal was to convince professionals viticulture its ties could be cut by an electric linker. Or not manufacturing such a tool, Company A had to use electric linker a third. The Court concludes that "understandable and complete information on the compatibility between the attachments and the use of electric linkers, could be communicated to the public without the use of the mark of a third party".

Moreover the company brand B was reproduced "neither product nor on their packaging or even in sales literature" but instead it was the mark of company A was visible so that no confusion was created.

In conclusion it is possible to reproduce the mark of a third company to demonstrate the qualities of the product, without his consent, provided that such use is necessary and it is not likely to mislead the public in regard the origin of products.

This article is illustrated with a work for which we received courtesy of KIKAYOU: