The order issued on 13 November 2025 by the Paris Judicial Court provides a clear illustration of a common issue in selective distribution networks: an authorised retailer who, after the termination of the contract, continues to use the trademarks of its former supplier as though the commercial relationship were still in force. The Bang & Olufsen case shows how an exploitation that was once fully lawful can, following termination, evolve into trademark infringement by reproduction, even though no counterfeit products are involved.
The Danish company Bang & Olufsen A/S, owner of the famous BANG & OLUFSEN, B & O, and figurative monogram trademarks, operates a selective distribution network for its high-end audiovisual products. In 2014, a French company joined this network as an authorised retailer, under a contract entered into on 6 November 2014 with Bang & Olufsen France. This agreement formally licensed the retailer to use the trademarks for the promotion of the products in a dedicated store and in its commercial communication.
The contract also set out very clear post-termination obligations, particularly in Article 16, requiring the retailer to immediately cease all trademark use, remove all communications referring to the brand, and amend its corporate name if it replicated the signs “B&O” or “Bang & Olufsen”. The contractual relationship ended on 31 May 2020, thereby terminating the trademark licence.
Yet several years later, Bang & Olufsen found that the former retailer continued to use, in the course of trade, the signs “Espace Bang & Olufsen”, “Espace B&O”, and the protected figurative logo on purchase orders, business documents, professional listings, a Kbis company register extract, and even on the manager’s LinkedIn profile. Uses that were once authorised thus became immediately unlawful.
Despite multiple cease-and-desist letters (2022–2024), no compliance occurred. Matters were further complicated by the opening of liquidation proceedings in 2025, leading Bang & Olufsen to implead the liquidator before the Interim Relief Judge.
The Interim Relief Judge recalled that, under Article L.716-4-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code, interim measures may be ordered where a credible showing of infringement is established. Reference was also made to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, defining the exclusive rights conferred by EU trademarks.
The evidence demonstrated that the signs “Espace Bang & Olufsen” and “Espace B&O” constituted, for the average consumer, virtually identical reproductions of the protected trademarks. The word “Espace” was purely descriptive and devoid of distinctive impact, while the replacement of the “&” symbol with the word “et” did not alter the overall impression. The use of the figurative monogram, identical to EU trademark No. 000781666, further reinforced the similarity.
The decisive point was that the retailer’s authorisation had ceased in 2020. Any further use of the trademarks was therefore entirely unauthorised, particularly as it related to goods identical to those covered in Class 9. On this basis, the judge found a prima facie case of infringement by reproduction, without needing to examine the subsidiary unfair-competition claims.
In light of the continued unauthorised use, the Paris Judicial Court issued a comprehensive injunction prohibiting the former retailer, represented by its liquidator, from using the disputed signs in any form, including commercial documentation, marketing materials, communications, and its corporate name.
The court also prohibited the transfer of any equipment or materials bearing the trademarks to a potential business purchaser, to prevent downstream continuation of the infringement.
In a particularly significant measure, the judge ordered the company to change its corporate name, a strong step even in liquidation proceedings, aimed at preventing any improper association between the business and the Bang & Olufsen brand.
The costs of the proceedings were placed on the liabilities of the liquidation estate.
Conclusion
This case reaffirms a core principle of trademark law: a trademark licence is inseparable from the contract granting it, and expires the moment that contract ends. Any further use, however identical to the use previously authorised, becomes unlawful and may constitute infringement.
The Bang & Olufsen decision highlights the need for trademark owners to monitor post-contractual conduct by former distributors and, where necessary, initiate interim proceedings to protect the integrity of their brand.
