Glossary
French: similarité des produits et services
To know whether one mark encroaches on another, it must be determined whether the goods and services are similar. Similarity of goods and services is therefore a pivotal notion in assessing trademark infringement and in oppositions — the French counterpart of the “relatedness of the goods” factor in the US DuPont analysis.
Goods and services may be similar if they share:
French decisions apply these factors with notable rigor. In INPI, March 28, 2024, NL 23-0186, the Institute walked category by category: eyewear was held dissimilar to surveillance equipment because the goods differ in nature, object and purpose, come from different operators (opticians versus security-equipment retailers), and are not united by a close and obligatory link — the French test for complementarity, stricter than the loose “relatedness” arguments often accepted in US practice.
No single factor is decisive on its own, and none needs to be met in full for a finding of similarity — the assessment is global, weighing all of the factors together, the same way the DuPont analysis balances multiple non-exhaustive factors rather than requiring a perfect match on any one of them. A frequent point of friction for US clients is the complementarity factor: French and EU decision-makers require a “close and obligatory link” — one product being indispensable or important to the use of the other, in the eyes of the same public — rather than the merely plausible commercial connection that sometimes carries a US relatedness argument.
Similarity must be demonstrated, not proclaimed. In INPI, June 30, 2023, OP 22-2976, an opponent who merely asserted that numerous services “obviously” fell within the broad category “education; training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities” lost on those services: absent reasoned argument, the similarity — not being self-evident — was not established. The lesson carries over to opposition practice before the EUIPO and to litigation before the Tribunal judiciaire alike: a bare list of goods and services, without factor-by-factor reasoning, invites rejection on that point.
Remember that classes prove nothing: similarity is assessed on the factors above, never on shared class membership.
The closest US analog is the “relatedness of the goods or services” factor from In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. — one of thirteen DuPont factors the TTAB and federal courts weigh in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis. The underlying instinct is the same: would consumers assume the goods come from, or are sponsored by, a common source? The practical difference is procedural rigor. French and EU decision-makers work through the nature/purpose/use/channels/complementarity/public/origin checklist explicitly, sub-heading by sub-heading, in nearly every reasoned decision, whereas US relatedness arguments are often folded into a shorter, more holistic paragraph. Counsel used to US opposition practice should expect to brief this factor in far more granular detail before the INPI or the EUIPO.
A US company selling web-based project-management software applies to register its mark in France for “computer software” in class 9, while an earlier French mark covers “business consulting services” in class 35. The goods and services sit in different classes and look, on paper, unrelated. But if the software is marketed specifically as a consulting tool sold alongside consulting engagements, to the same corporate buyers, through the same sales channel, an opponent could still argue complementarity and a shared relevant public — illustrating why classification alone never answers the similarity question.
This is the factor a US applicant will confront head-on when responding to a trademark opposition before the INPI or the EUIPO, and it is exactly what a trademark clearance search is designed to flag before filing. See also similarity of signs, likelihood of confusion and principle of specialty.