By a decision dated 19 December 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the interim order issued by the Paris Judicial Court and dismissed all applications for provisional measures brought by the companies operating the well-known French restaurants “L’Entrecôte” and “Le Relais de l’Entrecôte” against competing companies of the TL group, which operate restaurants under the “L’Atelier” brand.
This ruling provides important guidance on the strict conditions governing interim relief in matters involving alleged parasitism, reputed trademarks, and the interaction between the right to evidence and the protection of trade secrets.
The decision of the Court of Cassation referred to below can be consulted in full by clicking on the link provided.
The dispute opposes several companies operating restaurants in Paris and throughout France under the names “L’Entrecôte” and “Le Relais de l’Entrecôte”, holders in particular of the French word mark “L’ENTRECOTE”, registered for restaurant services in Class 43, to two companies of the TL group, namely TL Opco France and TL Restaurants France.
The latter operate recently opened restaurants in Paris and the surrounding region, offering a menu structured around a single, fixed formula centred on meat served with fries and a sauce described as “secret”, under the signs “L’Atelier” and “L’Atelier … qui peut !”.
Considering that these new establishments deliberately placed themselves in their wake by replicating the iconic French steak-and-fries concept associated with their restaurants, the “L’Entrecôte” companies initiated proceedings on the merits for trademark infringement, parasitic competition and misleading commercial practices, and subsequently sought interim relief.
By an order of 6 March 2025, the interim relief judge of the Paris Judicial Court dismissed most of the claims, holding that the requirements for interim measures were not met due to the existence of serious disputes, both as to the scope of the trademark relied upon and as to the existence of any protectable individual economic value.
The “L’Entrecôte” companies appealed, arguing that urgency, manifestly unlawful disturbance and imminent harm were established in light of the reputation of their trademark and the allegedly servile imitation of their restaurant concept.
A key procedural issue concerned Exhibit No. 2.13, produced by the appellants and consisting of an investment document entitled “Entrecôte – Since 1930, Always Imitated, Never Equalled – Investment Overview”, analysing the economic and strategic positioning of the “L’Entrecôte” model.
It is essential to clarify that the request to exclude this exhibit did not originate from the “L’Entrecôte” companies, but solely from TL Opco France and TL Restaurants France. They argued that the document was protected by trade secret rules under Article L.151-1 of the French Commercial Code and had been obtained under unexplained conditions.
The Court rejected this argument. While acknowledging that the document was confidential and potentially commercially sensitive, it held that its production was indispensable and proportionate to the appellants’ right to evidence. The document was relied upon to support the allegation of parasitic intent and contained mainly information relating to the appellants’ own economic activity. Excluding it would therefore have disproportionately impaired the rights of the defence.
The TL companies contended that the “L’ENTRECOTE” trademark was deceptive, on the ground that the restaurants do not actually serve entrecôte steak but rather sirloin or striploin, allegedly justifying invalidity or revocation for deceptiveness.
The Court recalled that deceptiveness must be assessed at the filing date, independently of the manner of use, and with regard to the goods or services designated. It held that the sign “L’ENTRECOTE” is not inherently misleading for restaurant services. The Court further noted that consumers are clearly informed, through menus and communication materials, of the precise nature of the meat served. No prima facie ground for invalidity or revocation was therefore established at the interim stage.
With respect to the reputed trademark claim, the Court accepted that “L’ENTRECOTE” enjoys a certain level of notoriety, stemming from the long-standing history of the restaurants, their media exposure and their international clientele. This reputation was nevertheless characterised as relative.
The Court conducted a detailed assessment of the signs actually used by the TL companies and observed that the restaurants are operated under the names “L’Atelier” and “L’Atelier … qui peut !”, which constitute the dominant signs presented to the public. Occasional use of the phrase “l’équipe de l’Entrecôte” in responses to online reviews was considered sporadic and not constitutive of trademark use, while the hashtag “#entrecote” was regarded as purely descriptive.
Visually, phonetically and conceptually, the similarity between the signs was found to be low. The Court therefore held that it was not established, with the level of certainty required in interim proceedings, that the public would draw a link between the signs, nor that the TL companies had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the “L’ENTRECOTE” mark.
The Court reiterated that parasitic competition, grounded in Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, requires the identification of a specific individual economic value resulting from investments or know-how that a third party has unfairly appropriated.
In the present case, the Court found that the menu concept relied upon – a fixed formula combining salad, meat, fries, a two-stage service and traditional presentation – had already been offered since the 1930s by an earlier, well-documented restaurant. The appellants were therefore not the originators of the concept they sought to protect, the main differences lying in the nature of the sauce and certain variations in the meat served.
The Court emphasised that the reproduction of freely available and pre-existing ideas cannot, in itself, constitute parasitism in the absence of an appropriable economic value. It also noted that the TL companies offer a broader menu, including poultry, and that no misappropriation of specific know-how was demonstrated. The existence of serious disputes thus precluded any interim relief.
By fully upholding the interim order, the Paris Court of Appeal adopted a particularly strict approach to parasitic competition and reputed trademark claims at the emergency stage. The ruling makes clear that even a well-known French culinary icon such as steak-and-fries does not confer exclusivity over a restaurant concept that has long entered the public domain.
The decision illustrates the courts’ consistent effort to strike a balance between the protection of distinctive signs and economic investments, on the one hand, and the fundamental principle of freedom of trade and competition, on the other, especially in the restaurant sector, where culinary ideas and formats largely remain free for all to use.
