Background
Wimbi Boats, a member of Wimbi Foundation, and the Foundation held or exclusively licensed rights associated with trademarks for rigid-inflatable recreational boats. They sued 3BBB for infringement of French semi-figurative trademark “Wimbi boats” No. 4137584. Wimbi Boats asserted that it had acquired the mark from Société Civile Wimbi by an assignment dated December 16, 2020, after that company had purportedly acquired it from Wimbi Foundation on March 27, 2020.
A case-management judge held the infringement claims inadmissible on August 29, 2022. The Lyon Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that Wimbi Foundation lacked legal personality when the trademark application was filed and therefore could not have placed the mark in its assets or validly transferred it. On that basis, the appellate court concluded that the later assignments had no effect and that Wimbi Boats had not shown that it owned the mark.
The appellate court also revoked an earlier closing order, accepted 3BBB’s reply submissions filed the day before the hearing, and closed the proceedings again on the hearing date. Wimbi Foundation and Wimbi Boats challenged both that procedure and the ruling on admissibility.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation quashed the Lyon Court of Appeal’s judgment in its entirety. Under Article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles L. 713-1 and L. 716-4-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, a civil trademark-infringement action is reserved to the registered trademark proprietor or, with the proprietor’s consent, its licensee. Wimbi Boats relied on its status as the mark’s current proprietor recorded in the National Trademark Register.
The appellate court therefore erred by treating the alleged defect in the chain of title as a matter of admissibility. Whether Wimbi Boats actually possessed the asserted trademark right concerned the merits of its infringement claim, not its standing to bring that claim. The Court of Cassation did not decide whether the assignments were valid or whether infringement occurred; it remanded those issues to a differently constituted panel of the Lyon Court of Appeal.
The Court rejected as inadmissible the separate procedural challenge concerning revocation of the closing order. Because the parties had agreed at the hearing to revoke that order and admit 3BBB’s reply, and the claimants had not alleged that they requested reopening of the arguments, they lacked an interest in challenging that ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A party recorded in the National Trademark Register as the current proprietor may bring a trademark-infringement action.
- A dispute over whether the claimant validly acquired the trademark goes to the merits of the asserted right, not the admissibility of the action.
- A party that agreed to revoke a closing order and admit late submissions cannot challenge that ruling without showing a relevant procedural interest.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a consequential line between standing and proof of ownership in French trademark litigation. Courts may examine alleged defects in a claimant’s chain of title when deciding whether the infringement claim succeeds, but they may not use that merits inquiry to bar at the threshold an action brought by the proprietor currently recorded in the trademark register.
The ruling does not validate Wimbi Boats’ title or establish infringement. It restores the parties to their positions before the appellate judgment and sends the case back to the Lyon Court of Appeal for renewed consideration by a different panel.