This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 7: Online Platforms and Intermediary Liability for IP Infringement
First Instance Court of Paris, Third Chamber, France [2024]: Groupe Lucien Barrière v. Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, RG No. 24/02349
Date of judgment: April 24, 2024
Issuing authority: First Instance Court of Paris, Third Chamber
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Commercial)
Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff/Appellant: Groupe Lucien Barrière
Defendant/Respondent: Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
Keywords: Trademark infringement; Dynamic injunctions; Non-contradictory injunctions; Online platforms
Basic facts: On November 20, 2023, the Barrière Group (Groupe Lucien Barrière) filed a criminal complaint to denounce the use of Barrière trademarks, registered for casino services, gambling services, betting services, and betting services provided via electronic media (among others), without their authorization to promote an online casino gambling application on Facebook and Instagram. The Barrière Group claimed to have reported more than 2,400 advertisements by one hundred accounts on Meta’s platform. It sent a formal notice on January 8, 2024, demanding the removal from Instagram and Facebook of advertisements it deemed unlawful, highlighting that online casinos are prohibited in France.
On January 11, 2024, following an ex parte application submitted by the Barrière Group, Meta was ordered to implement all available means to prevent unlawful advertisements on its platforms by filtering content meeting the criteria defined in the order, and to preserve the data concerning the disputed advertisements and their advertisers.
Meta asserted that the disputed advertisements were inaccessible and that as a hosting provider, it has no general monitoring obligation and could not prevent the dissemination of other advertisements.
Held: The First Instance Court of Paris mainly maintained dynamic injunctions, while specifying their targets and limiting their duration. By judgment of January 28, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed this decision. The case was brought before the French Court of Cassation.
Relevant holdings in relation to Online Platforms and Intermediary Liability for IP Infringement: This case confirms that dynamic injunctions are a powerful tool for combating trademark counterfeiting on the internet.
The court found that Meta, by permitting the publication of infringing advertisements on platforms it operates, was an intermediary service provider whose immunity from liability does not preclude a court from requiring it to terminate or prevent infringement, under EU Directives 2004/48/EC and 2000/31, as transposed into French law.
A temporary, targeted and proportionate injunction does not violate the prohibition under the EU e-Commerce Directive and EU Digital Services Act, as transposed into French law, on imposing general monitoring obligations on intermediaries. Meta was required to screen online gambling advertisements that met specific criteria using already existing automated pre-publication filtering, for a 12-month period.
Relevant legislation: French Intellectual Property Code (art L.716-4-6) (FR625), EU Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (art 3) (EU053); EU Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce – art 14 §3) (EU329); EU Regulation 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act ) (EU328).