Category: Newsletter

The 13th edition of the Nice Classification, which entered into force on 1 January 2026, has modified the classification of several goods and services, notably in the fields of optics, wellness, and transport.

 

Among the main developments:

• essential oils are now classified according to their use: cosmetic in class 3, medical in class 5, or food-related in class 30;
• glasses, lenses and optical accessories move from class 9 to class 10, as they are considered medical devices; only glasses intended for scientific purposes remain in class 9;
• heated clothing is now treated as clothing in its own right and falls under class 25, and emergency vehicles are moved to class 12.

French trademarks in force on 1 January 2026 remain valid as they stand, and reclassification will only take place at the time of renewal.

 

However, a difficulty may arise before that date in the event of an international extension of a French trademark. In such a case, the applicant may receive a notification of irregularity inviting them to amend the wording of the goods and services in order to comply with the classification in force. Proposals for regularization would then be issued by the INPI.

 

In addition, if the reclassification results in the addition of a new class not initially covered by the trademark, the applicant will have to pay an additional fee of €40. If, following the reclassification, the class initially designated is no longer of interest (for example, if it no longer contains any goods/services or if the remaining goods/services are no longer relevant), the applicant should be able to renounce it. In that case, no additional payment should be due, as the total number of classes would remain unchanged.

 

For European Union trademarks and international registrations, no reclassification mechanism will be implemented for registrations in force on 1 January 2026: only new filings will have to comply with the new classification.

 

In practice, this new edition does not fundamentally alter trademark filing strategies. However, certain adjustments may prove necessary, both at the time of renewal and when filing new trademarks, if the relevant titles are affected by these developments.

Data Breach: CNIL imposes a €42 million fine on Free Mobile and Free (13 January 2026)

 

In October 2024, an attack compromised the information systems of Free Mobile and Free, exposing the personal data of 24 million subscribers, including IBANs for shared customers. Following more than 2,500 complaints, the CNIL found breaches of the GDPR attributable to each of the companies for the processing of their subscribers’ personal data.

 

Firstly, the CNIL noted that Free Mobile and Free had not implemented sufficient security measures in accordance with Article 32 of the GDPR, in particular for VPN authentication and the detection of abnormal activity, exposing subscribers’ data. The companies were ordered to finalise their security enhancements within three months.

 

The CNIL also noted that Free Mobile and Free had informed subscribers of the breach by email and via a toll-free number/internal system, but that the email did not contain all the information required by Article 34 of the GDPR, preventing those affected from fully understanding the consequences of the breach and the protective measures to be taken.

 

Finally, the CNIL found that Free Mobile was storing millions of pieces of personal data belonging to former subscribers without justification, beyond the period necessary for accounting purposes. The company has begun sorting and deleting the excess data and has been ordered to complete this operation within six months.

 

• For more information on this subject, click here.

 

The report on “Influence and social networks” was submitted to the government (13 January 2026)

 

Two and a half years after the enactment of Law No. 2023-451 of 9 June 2023 regulating commercial influence, a parliamentary report presented on 13 January 2026 gives an overall positive assessment of the existing system. The law has had a real educational effect, increasing the transparency of commercial communications and confidence in the digital economy, while combating misleading practices more effectively.

 

However, the report highlights the persistence of new abuses linked to the rapid evolution of uses and technologies. Monetised live streams, particularly on certain platforms such as TikTok, are identified as a major area of concern, notably due to the integrated financial mechanisms, the risks of aggressive commercial practices and the increased exposure of minors.

 

In response, French parliamentarians have formulated 78 recommendations, including several key measures:

 

• the creation of a mandatory registration system for influencer agents in order to professionalise the sector, which will involve criminal background checks;
• the strengthening of the supervision of online training courses promoted by influencers, with the introduction of a prior authorisation system;
• strengthening the obligations imposed on platforms, particularly with regard to user protection, transparency of financial flows and limiting minors’ access to certain content;
• increased supervision of sensitive promotions (alcohol, health, gaming, adult content), including when these are based on tools using generative AI.

 

The report highlights the insufficient operational resources of the supervisory authorities, in particular the DGCCRF (French authority for competition, consumer affairs and fraud control), ARCOM (French authority for audiovisual and digital communication) and AMF (French financial markets authority), which are faced with the considerable volume of content disseminated daily on platforms. It recommends strengthening automated monitoring and detection capabilities, improving coordination and information sharing between public actors, and creating a one-stop portal for reporting “digital disorder” attached to the Prime Minister’s office in order to structure and centralise the public response.

 

This work should feed into the forthcoming submission of a draft “influencers 2” bill, aimed at adapting the legal framework to technological developments and new economic models of influence.

 

• For more information on this subject, click here.

 

Airbnb does not have the status of a hosting provider and can be held liable for illegal subletting.  (7 January 2026)

 

In two rulings handed down on 7 January 2026, the French Court of Cassation ruled on the liability of the Airbnb platform in cases of subletting without the landlord’s authorisation.

 

In the first case, a social housing tenant had sublet her flat, located in a tourist area, without her landlord’s consent. In the second case, a tenant of a Parisian property had also sublet the property on a short-term basis without the written authorisation of the owner, in violation of Article 8 of the Law of 6 July 1989. In both cases, the landlords sought the return of the rent received and held Airbnb liable.

 

The lower courts adopted differing analyses. In the first case, the Court of Appeal recognised Airbnb as a host within the meaning of the Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN), thereby excluding any liability on the part of the platform. In the second case, however, the Court of Appeal considered that Airbnb played a role that went beyond that of a mere technical intermediary and could, as such, be held liable.

 

The Court of Cassation points out that the benefit of the liability exemption regime provided for by the LCEN is strictly reserved for operators who adopt a neutral, purely technical and passive role in the storage and provision of content supplied by users. Such status presupposes a lack of knowledge and control over the offers disseminated.

 

However, the Court of Cassation noted that Airbnb actively organises and supervises the operation of its platform. It imposes rules on users, intervenes in the publication and transaction process, and promotes certain offers or hosts. These elements reflect interference in the relationship between hosts and travellers and give the platform a capacity for influence that is incompatible with the neutrality required of a host.

 

Consequently, the Court of Cassation ruled that Airbnb could not be classified as a hosting provider and therefore could not benefit from the exemption from liability provided for in this capacity. Airbnb may therefore be held liable in the event of illegal subletting.

 

• • For more information on this subject, click here and here.

 

The European Commission is preparing the Digital Fairness Act

 

The European Commission is preparing the Digital Fairness Act (DFA), a future legislative initiative intended to complement the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by strengthening consumer protection in the digital environment.

 

The DFA is a follow-up to the “Fitness Check” launched in 2022 and published in October 2024, which assessed the effectiveness of three key directives (UCPD, CRD and UCTD). This analysis concludes that, although these texts remain relevant, they only partially achieve their objectives in the face of contemporary digital practices. Consumers today are exposed to misleading or addictive interfaces, forms of personalisation that exploit their vulnerabilities, difficulties in cancelling digital subscriptions, and unfair contract terms. The annual financial loss is estimated at least £7.9 billion for consumers in the European Union, without taking into account psychological damage (link).

 

In this context, the DFA will aim to combat dark patterns, the addictive design of digital products, misleading influencer marketing, abusive online profiling and certain subscription practices. Particular attention will be paid to the protection of minors and vulnerable consumers. The text will also seek to strengthen legal certainty and limit the risks of regulatory fragmentation, as several Member States are considering national initiatives.

 

The text will be formally proposed to the Parliament and the Council in the third quarter of 2026, after which its legal form (stand-alone regulation or targeted directive) will be specified.

 

• For more information on this subject: click here.

• Equal treatment: meal vouchers also apply to teleworkers

 

Until now, the question of granting meal vouchers to teleworking employees has been contentious. While some judges favored the principle of equal treatment, others considered that an employer could refuse them in the absence of additional meal-related expenses.

 

In two rulings handed down on October 8, 2025, the Court of Cassation settled the matter: teleworking employees are entitled to meal vouchers under the same conditions as those working on-site.

 

Relying on Article L. 1222-9 of the French Labour Code, which provides that teleworkers enjoy the same rights as employees working within company premises, the Court clarified that the only criterion for granting meal vouchers is that the meal must fall within the employee’s working hours, regardless of the place or organization of work.

 

In a second ruling, the Court added that the practice of granting meal vouchers to employees located far from the company cafeteria cannot be suspended simply because they switch to telework.

 

💡 Key takeaway: The allocation of meal vouchers must now be identical for on-site and teleworking employees, provided their schedule includes a lunch break. Beyond this landmark decision, meal vouchers remain a useful tool for strengthening employees’ purchasing power, benefiting from favorable social and tax treatment (exemption from social contributions up to €7.26 per voucher issued since January 1, 2025).

 

• Dismissal and late delivery of end-of-contract documents

 

Under Articles L.1234-19, L.1234-20, and R.1234-9 of the French Labour Code, the employer must provide the employee’s end-of-contract documents upon termination.

 

In cases of dismissal for gross misconduct, the employment relationship ends immediately upon notification. The termination date is therefore the date the employer expresses the intent to end the employment — that is, the date the dismissal letter is sent by registered mail.

 

Relying on these provisions, the Court of Cassation overturned a Montpellier Court of Appeal decision, ruling that when a dismissal for gross misconduct is pronounced, the employer must provide the end-of-contract documents on the same date, given the absence of notice period.

 

In this case, the employee was dismissed on April 9, 2018, but received his end-of-contract documents on June 6, 2018. The Court of Appeal had rejected his claim for damages, reasoning that no harm could be proven given the hypothetical notice period.

 

The Court of Cassation logically quashed this decision, reaffirming that these documents must be delivered as of the dismissal date. Otherwise, the employee may claim damages, provided that harm can be demonstrated — for instance, delayed access to unemployment benefits. A short gap of a few days is, however, unlikely to cause prejudice, since unemployment benefits are deferred by a mandatory seven-day waiting period, in addition to any delay due to unused paid leave.

 

In light of this decision, companies must ensure that end-of-contract documents are sent promptly after dismissal for gross misconduct. This simultaneous issuance may raise logistical issues for employers who usually prepare such documents at month-end. To ensure legal security, practices may need adjusting.

 

• Adoption and medically assisted reproduction: strengthened protection and authorized absences

Adopted on June 19, 2025, and published in the Official Journal on July 1, 2025, Law No. 2025-595 strengthens the protection of individuals involved in a “parental project” through assisted reproduction (PMA/IVF) or adoption.

 

Henceforth, protection against discrimination linked to parental projects applies to all employees — men and women — engaged in a PMA or adoption process. Employers can no longer refuse hiring, terminate a contract, or transfer an employee on the basis of such participation. They are also prohibited from seeking or using related information.

 

Employees undertaking PMA treatments may now take paid leave to attend necessary medical appointments, procedures, or treatments. They may also accompany their spouse, civil partner, or cohabitant to up to three mandatory medical appointments per protocol.

 

Likewise, employees involved in an adoption project are entitled to leave to attend compulsory adoption interviews. A forthcoming decree will set the maximum number of absences allowed.

 

This law represents a major advance in equality and anti-discrimination policy: parental projects, whether through PMA or adoption, are now fully recognized within the professional sphere. Employers must adjust internal leave and HR management procedures accordingly.

 

• Automatic compensation in cases of proven trade union discrimination — a new reversal

In 2016, the Court of Cassation established that in the event of an employer’s breach of a legal or contractual obligation, trial judges have sovereign discretion to assess the existence and quantum of damages.

 

Since then, the Court has recognized various exceptions.

 

In a ruling dated September 10, 2025, it introduced a new one, holding that “the mere finding of trade union discrimination entitles the employee to compensation.”

 

In this case, a former staff representative dismissed for incapacity claimed damages for trade union discrimination. The Dijon Court of Appeal rejected his claim, holding that he had neither proven the damage nor needed further reparation since the court’s recognition of discrimination was itself compensatory.

 

The Court of Cassation overturned that decision, ruling that the mere finding of trade union discrimination automatically opens the right to compensation.

 

This surprising decision appears to rest on an unwritten, third criterion suggested by the Advocate General, based on both:

• the importance of the legal rule at stake, and
• the victim’s inability to prove the harm suffered.

 

Although not explicitly stated, it seems the Court relied on this reasoning.

 

If confirmed, this new standard could significantly broaden automatic compensation cases. However, recent rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union reaffirm that judges’ discretion to assess damages does not undermine the effectiveness of EU law, suggesting the French courts may maintain a case-by-case approach.

 

• Hidden cameras in the workplace: CNIL recalls legality requirements

 

In a decision dated September 18, 2025, the CNIL fined a company €100,000 for installing hidden cameras disguised as smoke detectors and recording employees’ conversations in storage areas. This ruling reiterates the strict conditions governing workplace video surveillance.

 

Hidden cameras may only be used exceptionally, where reasonable suspicion of serious misconduct exists, and with strict safeguards balancing corporate security and employee privacy.

 

To be lawful, such monitoring must be:

• temporary and strictly time-limited;
• documented and objectively justified;
• compliant with GDPR, following consultation with the Data Protection Officer.

 

In this case, the company failed to prove the temporary and proportionate nature of the system, nor its compliance with transparency or fairness obligations. The CNIL also noted excessive audio recording, lack of DPO involvement, and failure to report a personal data breach.

 

This decision reaffirms that hidden video surveillance is a highly exceptional measure that must observe robust proportionality and GDPR compliance safeguards.

La société Fred Paris a obtenu, le 18 juin 2025 (TJ Paris, 18 juin 2025, RG n° 23/10855), la condamnation d’une créatrice de bijoux qui commercialisait une gamme de bijoux reproduisant les caractéristiques essentielles du bracelet Force 10 GM et de son modèle communautaire. Nous n’avons pas connaissance d’un éventuel appel interjeté.

 

Le litige oppose un célèbre joailler et une créatrice de bijoux

 

La célèbre maison française de joaillerie et d’horlogerie compte, parmi ses créations, deux gammes de bijoux dénommées « Force 10 » et « Chance Infinie ». La maison est titulaire du modèle de l’UE n° 000772819-0001, déposé en 2007, représentant la fameuse boucle en forme de manille stylisée des créations de la gamme Force 10.

 

La défenderesse est une créatrice de bijoux qui commercialisait, sur son site Internet et sur des marchés locaux, des modèles qui reproduisaient, selon Fred Paris, les caractéristiques essentielles de ses produits.

 

Fred Paris a ainsi, après mise en demeure, assigné la créatrice de bijoux en contrefaçon de droit d’auteur, en contrefaçon de modèle et en concurrence déloyale.

 

Des actes de contrefaçon et de concurrence déloyale étaient invoqués

 

Fred Paris alléguait que la créatrice avait enfreint ses droits d’auteur en reproduisant les caractéristiques essentielles composant l’originalité des produits litigieux. Concernant le modèle de l’UE, la société estimait que les bijoux litigieux reprenaient les caractéristiques essentielles des produits de la marque, de sorte qu’ils créaient une même impression visuelle globale, caractérisant ainsi des actes de contrefaçon.

 

La créatrice reconnaissait la similitude entre les bijoux mais invoquait la banalisation de la gamme, de nombreux bijoux similaires étant commercialisés par des tiers. Elle arguait, pour sa défense, que l’acheteur moyen n’est pas conscient de la similitude entre les produits litigieux et ceux de Fred Paris.

 

Le tribunal a reconnu l’ensemble des faits reprochés

 

Sur la contrefaçon de droits d’auteur

Après avoir reconnu la titularité des droits revendiqués par Fred Paris, qui exploite publiquement sa gamme depuis au moins 2008, les juges caractérisent l’originalité des bijoux la composant.

 

Ils constatent que les bijoux litigieux reprennent, comme l’alléguait la demanderesse, les caractéristiques essentielles des siens.

 

Les actes de contrefaçon sont ainsi caractérisés selon les juges, « peu important l’existence d’autres sites proposant des bijoux similaires […], la bonne foi étant indifférente », en particulier dans un contexte où la créatrice avait été mise en demeure par Fred Paris.

 

Sur la contrefaçon de modèle communautaire

De même, le tribunal reconnait la reproduction des caractéristiques essentielles du modèle dans les bijoux de la créatrice qui produisent, sur l’utilisateur averti, la même impression globale.

 

Sur la concurrence déloyale et le parasitisme

Le risque de confusion ou d’association dans l’esprit du public créé par l’effet de gamme des bijoux de la défenderesse est reconnu. Il vaut en particulier pour la gamme « Chance infinie » qui n’avait pas fait l’objet d’un dépôt de modèle.

 

Le parasitisme résulte de la volonté de la défenderesse de se placer dans le sillage de la société Fred Paris pour profiter de ses investissements et de la notoriété de ses bijoux.

 

La réparation octroyée reste modeste

 

La créatrice de bijoux est condamnée à réparer le préjudice subi par Fred Paris au titre de la contrefaçon, estimée à hauteur de 3 000 euros, et du parasitisme et concurrence déloyale, à hauteur de 1 000 euros. Le caractère modeste de ces montants résulte notamment du fait que Fred Paris n’avait pas prouvé, selon le tribunal, des conséquences économiquement négatives ; que les bénéfices réalisés étaient limités ; qu’il n’était pas prouvé que les actes reprochés s’étaient étalés dans le temps. Le préjudice réparé est donc circonscrit aux économies d’investissement réalisées et au préjudice moral résultant de la banalisation des bijoux de la demanderesse.

 

La défenderesse est également condamnée à verser 3 000 euros à Fred Paris en application de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.

 

Cette décision illustre la double protection des créations joaillières (et de toutes les œuvres d’art appliqué) par le droit d’auteur et le droit des dessins et modèles, mais aussi par le droit commun de la responsabilité civile entre concurrents.

 

Elle incitera peut-être les titulaires de droits qui envisagent d’assigner à opérer une balance entre les coûts de la procédure, les perspectives de réparation potentiellement très modestes et le souhait éventuel de faire de ces condamnations une affaire de principe.

A dynamic semester for the Joffe & Associés Team!

 

The past six months have been marked by a steady pace of milestones and achievements: the appointment of a new partner, the arrival of fresh talent, recognitions in leading rankings, media features, expert analyses, industry conferences, sporting challenges, social commitments, and interactions with students. It has been a period of sustained activity on all fronts.

 

Behind every initiative stands a committed and dynamic team, attentive to the needs of its clients as well as the broader issues shaping society.

 

This newsletter looks back at the highlights of the semester and reflects what truly sets us apart: the strength of our collective.

 

We hope you enjoy reading it!

 

Read the full newsletter here: Joffe & Associés : Newsletter – First Half of 2025.

According to the CJEU, annual paid leave is intended for rest, while sick leave is for healing. One cannot therefore replace the other.

 

However, the French Labor Code ignores this situation and case law considers that “if an employee falls ill during their leave, their sick leave is not taken into account. The days of leave cannot be carried over and are lost.”

 

In view of this gap, the European Commission launched an infringement procedure against France on 18^th June 2025. A letter of formal notice has been sent urging France to comply with Directive 2003/88/EC on working time in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the right to annual leave. France has two months to comply, or risk a referral to the CJEU and a possible sanction. The legislator will therefore have to adapt the Labour Code.

 

Some lawyers and trade unions in favour of the change see this as an important social step forward in order to guarantee employees a real right to rest, even in the event of illness occurring during the holidays, while sick leave and paid leave pursue two different purposes. Many countries provide for this right to deferral: in Belgium, provided that the employee informs their employer immediately, provides a medical certificate, and reschedules the days later; in Italy, Spain or Switzerland where the right to deferral is strictly regulated with the requirement of rigorous medical proof and without allowing extended holidays.

 

However, many critics have been raised against this system, fearing a generalization of sick leave during holidays and opportunistic behavior to artificially extend vacations.

 

The abuse of sick leave is already a worrying reality in France. The Health Insurance has noted an explosion of false work stoppages in recent years. 42 million euros of sick leave fraud were detected in 2024, a figure 2.4 times higher than in 2023. In addition, out of 230,000 sick leaves verified by medical advisors, one in three was unjustified and was suspended.

 

In order to effectively combat these abuses, the Health Insurance has made available, and then made mandatory from July 2025, a new standardized form for notice of sick leave that is difficult to falsify and more secure (special paper, holographic label, magnetic ink, identification of the prescriber, etc.).

 

Strengthening the control of sick leave is certainly a reasonable counterpart to the evolution of French law required by the European Commission, to avoid abuses and preserve the credibility of the system. Confidence requires maintaining the balance between individual rights and the prevention of abuse. It is on this condition that this reform can be fully accepted and effective.