A trade mark may not benefit from the

Décision de référence : cc • N° 88-82.677 • 1989-10-11 • Consulter la décision →

Cette décision apporte un éclairage important sur votre droit immobilier. Voici ce qu'elle change pour vous.

The situation

A trade mark may not benefit from the provisions of Article 422(2) of the Criminal Code, which penalise the use thereof without the authorisation of the interested party, unless it possesses a character of novelty and originality, which is sovereignly assessed by the trial judges.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

Scrupulously adhere to the statutory time limits for appeals
Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, instruments, correspondence)
Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail | → Browse all our legal articles

Practical use cases

First-time buyer misses hidden defect deadline

Sophie bought a flat in Bordeaux for €320,000. Three months after moving in, she discovers severe damp. The seller had concealed it. Sophie delays contacting a solicitor, unsure of her rights.

Practical application:

The Court of Cassation emphasises strict compliance with statutory deadlines. Under French law, Sophie must file a hidden defect claim within two years of discovery. She should immediately gather the surveyor's report, photos, and correspondence with the seller, then instruct a solicitor to issue formal proceedings. Early legal advice could prevent the claim becoming time-barred.

Paris landlord fails to evict non-paying tenant

Marc owns a studio in Paris rented for €1,100/month. The tenant stopped paying rent three months ago. Marc sent an informal email but took no formal steps, thinking a friendly approach would work.

Practical application:

This case highlights the necessity of following prescribed legal procedures. Marc must serve a formal notice to pay (commandement de payer) via a bailiff. If the tenant does not pay within two months, he can then file an eviction claim. Keeping all rent receipts, the lease, and the bailiff's notice is essential to prove the breach. The Court of Cassation decision reinforces that missing procedural deadlines can irreparably weaken your case.

Lyon co-owner challenges roof repair vote too late

The condominium association in Lyon voted to replace the roof at a cost of €45,000. Claire, a co-owner, believes the work is unnecessary. She complained to neighbours but only consulted a lawyer four months after the meeting.

Practical application:

The Court of Cassation decision underlines that property law hinges on adhering to appeal periods. A co-owner has just two months from the general meeting to challenge a vote in court. Claire should have immediately obtained the minutes and sought legal advice. Now, her claim is likely inadmissible. Future co-owners must mark the deadline in their calendar, keep all meeting documents, and consult a lawyer preventively.

A trade mark may not benefit from the

The situation

What the law says

Key points

Legal information

Source

Keywords

Practical use cases

First-time buyer misses hidden defect deadline

Paris landlord fails to evict non-paying tenant

Lyon co-owner challenges roof repair vote too late

About the author

Does this affect you?

📬 Get legal updates

Consult a specialist lawyer near you

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law