Glossary
French: déchéance pour dégénérescence
Déchéance pour dégénérescence (roughly day-shay-AHNSS poor day-jay-nay-RESS-ahnss) is the French equivalent of genericide: a registered mark can be revoked when it has lost all distinctive, origin-indicating function and has become a word of everyday language used to designate goods or services from multiple economic operators, with no identifiable single source. US counsel will recognize the doctrine that ended aspirin and escalator as trademarks, and that continues to threaten marks whose owners have been too successful at getting the public to use the brand name as the name of the product category itself.
The monopoly granted to a trademark owner presupposes that the mark distinguishes goods and services. Once a mark no longer identifies the products of one specific business and no longer lets consumers repeat a positive purchasing experience, the monopoly serves no consumer purpose and must end. The doctrine reflects a trade-off familiar to US practitioners: exclusive rights in a sign are granted in exchange for that sign performing a source-identifying function, and when the sign stops performing that function — regardless of how much goodwill or investment produced the mark’s success in the first place — the justification for exclusivity disappears with it.
Under Article L.714-6 of the Intellectual Property Code, revocation is granted only if the mark became the usual trade designation as a result of the owner’s activity or inactivity (see also CJEU, June 6, 2014, C-409/12, point 32). US genericness turns on consumer perception alone; France adds this attribution requirement, meaning the same evidence of generic public use can lead to different outcomes in the two systems depending on whether the owner is shown to have caused or tolerated the drift. Illustration: CITY STADE was found to have become the usual French term for a multi-sport field, yet the mark survived because the evolution was not attributable to its owner (INPI, February 24, 2022, DC 21-0032) — the public had genericized the term on its own, without any act or omission by the trademark owner contributing to it. By contrast, TEXTO was cancelled once the term merely described SMS services across all operators (see trademark cancellation), where the owner’s own conduct in the marketplace was found to have contributed to the drift.
In practice, the “activity or inactivity” inquiry looks at whether the trademark owner used the mark generically in its own advertising or product literature, failed to use the ® or ™-equivalent markings and generic descriptors alongside the mark, tolerated widespread generic use by competitors and the press without objection, or — conversely — took active steps such as cease-and-desist letters, style guides for licensees, and a consistent trademark watch program to preserve the mark’s distinctiveness. The CITY STADE and TEXTO outcomes above illustrate the two ends of that spectrum.
A US company owns a French mark for a novel product category and the term catches on so well that French media and even competitors start using it as the generic name for that type of product. Under the CITY STADE reasoning, the mark’s survival will turn heavily on what the owner did — or failed to do — while that drift was happening: consistent enforcement letters and correct trademark use in the company’s own materials support survival, while silence and internal generic use support revocation.
Genericide is a process the owner can and must actively fight — through consistent trademark use, policing and trademark watch programs.
Genericide is most often raised as a counterclaim or a standalone action in trademark litigation in France, and it is the reason a trademark watch program is recommended for any mark that risks becoming the everyday name for its product category. See also: distinctiveness, trademark revocation, genericide and trademark use.