In this case, Google LLC sued the companies Google Car and Kwantum Participations for infringement of its well‑known trademark GOOGLE. Dismissed by the judicial court, Google LLC prevailed on 1 October 2025 before the Court of Appeal.
Google LLC owns several French and European Union GOOGLE trademarks in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42.
As part of its diversification, it states that it developed an autonomous car project called GOOGLE CAR.
Google Car, whose sole shareholder is Kwantum Participations, specializes in automobile manufacturing.
The American company sued the two French companies for trademark infringement based on the reputation of its marks.
The Paris judicial court rejected Google LLC’s claims.
A first‑instance decision of dismissal based on the only document provided by Google LLC
The court based its rejection of Google LLC’s claims on the fact that the use of the corporate name GOOGLE CAR by the defendants was not carried out for commercial purposes, since the only document provided by the claimant was Google Car’s Kbis extract showing its corporate name.
However, the incorporation of a company is not a commercial act but a legal act, which does not in itself establish the existence of an activity.
Thus, the court held that harm to the reputation of the GOOGLE trademark had not been established in the absence of evidence of commercial activity under that name by the defendants.
It therefore ordered Google LLC to pay the sum of 5,000 euros to the defendants under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It was in these circumstances that Google LLC appealed the judgment.
The Court of Appeal recognizes the infringement of the well‑known GOOGLE trademarks
Expanding on its arguments and now submitting various supporting documents, Google LLC renewed its claims before the Court of Appeal, arguing that the use of the corporate name, trade name and business sign GOOGLE CAR by the respondents was indeed carried out for commercial purposes, insofar as their use on Google Car’s website and on social media was intended to promote products offered to the public, namely an autonomous vehicle.
Such use was therefore clearly carried out in the course of trade, and the court erred in considering otherwise.
The Court also emphasized the exceptional worldwide reputation of GOOGLE, such that the respondents could have had no other reason than to unduly benefit from the reputation of the American company’s trademarks, thereby damaging the value of the GOOGLE marks and exposing them to tarnishment.
Analyzing the signs at issue and noting the identical reproduction of the highly distinctive term GOOGLE, combined with the descriptive word CAR in second position, the Court confirmed the similar visual, phonetic and conceptual impressions.
The Court therefore found that the respondents had infringed the well‑known GOOGLE trademarks and overturned the lower court’s judgment.
It ordered Google Car to pay a lump sum of 20,000 euros and prohibited the respondents from using the term GOOGLE as a corporate name, trade name, domain name or business sign.
Such a decision, recognizing the clearly exceptional reputation of the GOOGLE trademarks, therefore restores the American company to its rightful position, after it regrettably failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence before the trial court.
The Court of Appeal’s decision, which seems more than justified, thus confirms the reputation of a trademark that no longer needs to be proven, but whose protection can only be invoked if the infringing acts of the defendant are properly demonstrated.
It is therefore a useful reminder to those who might believe that the reputation of their mark is sufficient to convince a court to condemn an infringer, even with an overly thin case file.
In view of a well‑constructed argument supported by convincing evidence, the Court of Appeal rightly condemned a company that was, to say the least, rather bold…
By Gilles ESCUDIER, 9 December 2025