In a decision handed down on 29 October 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (Pôle 5 - Chamber 1), ruling on remand after cassation, declared entirely invalid a French trademark filed in 2019 by Mr. [M], consisting of the identical sign “Richard Mille”. The judgment provides a striking illustration of how French courts address speculative filings targeting highly reputed luxury brands and reaffirms the central role of the principle fraus omnia corrumpit in trademark law.
The dispute involves Turlen Holding SA, acting on behalf of the prestigious Swiss watchmaker Richard Mille, and an individual who had registered the identical sign for an exceptionally broad array of goods and services, ranging from machine tools to telecommunications, vehicles, and IT services, none of which relate to watchmaking. Since its creation in the early 2000s, Richard Mille has emerged as one of the leading names in contemporary Swiss horology, renowned for its technologically extreme timepieces, aerospace-grade materials, avant-garde design, ultra-limited series, and high-profile partnerships with Ferrari, elite athletes and cultural figures. The brand enjoys an exceptional international reputation, fully recognised by the Court.
The case originated with a trademark application filed on 2 November 2019. Mr. [M] sought registration of the verbal sign “Richard Mille” for an unusually extensive list of goods and services. Turlen Holding promptly initiated invalidity proceedings before the French IP Office (INPI), arguing that the contested mark infringed the reputation of its earlier marks. INPI partially upheld the claim, recognising the brand’s renown but refusing to cancel the mark beyond several categories of goods and services.
The Paris Court of Appeal first dismissed Turlen’s appeal in 2022. The French Supreme Court later set that judgment aside in January 2024, holding that the lower court had failed to address key arguments relating to the brand’s reputation and had insufficiently examined the allegation of fraud. The matter was therefore remitted to a differently composed appellate panel, culminating in the ruling of 29 October 2025.
The Court first confirms that the Richard Mille mark enjoys a particularly high level of reputation throughout the European Union for watches and chronometric instruments. The evidence, including partnerships with Ferrari in Formula 1, collaborations with chefs and contemporary artists, extensive media coverage, leading industry rankings and a turnover of EUR 1.5 billion in 2023, convincingly demonstrates the strength of the brand’s reputation.
However, the Court reiterates that under the Intel doctrine, even an exceptionally famous mark cannot automatically prevent the registration of an identical sign for goods and services unrelated to its core activity. A “link” must still be established in the mind of the relevant public. After a detailed review, the Court concludes that no such link is established for certain categories (sewing machines, household appliances, agricultural machinery, elevators, press-agency services, energy audits, interior design, etc.), whose consumers remain too remote from the universe of luxury watchmaking. INPI’s partial decision is therefore confirmed on this point.
It is the fraudulent nature of the filing that ultimately determines the outcome.
The Court recalls that, even before the 2019 reform of French trademark law, fraud could justify declaring a trademark invalid when filed with the intent to deprive a third party of a sign necessary to its activities, or to secure a monopoly for purposes unrelated to the essential function of a trademark. The CJEU’s case law, notably Koton and SkyKick, now reinforces this understanding by recognising that a lack of genuine intention to use a mark, combined with an overly broad monopolisation strategy, may constitute bad faith.
Applying these principles, the Court identifies multiple converging indicators demonstrating that the 2019 filing was fraudulent.
At the time of the filing, Mr. [M] could not plausibly have ignored the worldwide fame of Richard Mille, given its exceptional media exposure and its presence in sectors closely related to the applicant’s declared activities. The Court highlights in particular the 2018 collaboration between Richard Mille and Airbus Corporate for a limited edition inspired by aeronautical design, a field in which the applicant claimed to operate.
In addition, Mr. [M] had filed numerous trademarks identical or nearly identical to globally recognised brands (UNIVERSAL, ADIDAS, YEEZY, GOOGLE CAR), none of which were ever used. The Court considers this pattern highly revealing of a broader parasitic strategy typical of serial brand squatting.
Finally, immediately after securing a favourable decision in earlier proceedings, Mr. [M] approached Turlen Holding proposing an “amicable settlement”, expressly relying on the judgment. According to the Court, this behaviour reflected a clear intention to derive financial advantage in a disloyal manner.
Taken together, these elements establish a deliberate plan to appropriate high-value signs in the absence of any genuine commercial project, and with the manifest intention of exploiting the reputation of the Richard Mille brand. In accordance with the principle fraus omnia corrumpit, the Court orders the full invalidation of the contested trademark across all goods and services, including those for which no reputational harm had been demonstrated.
The decision has important consequences for trademark practice.
It reaffirms that even exceptionally famous brands such as Richard Mille do not enjoy automatic protection across all goods and services: the requirement to establish a “link” remains intact.
Above all, it confirms the increasing effectiveness of the fraud ground in combating speculative or parasitic filings. When bad faith at the time of filing is established, the trademark can be invalidated in its entirety, independently of any assessment of confusion or harm to reputation.
This ruling therefore strengthens the legal tools available to luxury brands and rights holders to safeguard their intangible assets against abusive filings.
