Resolving a dispute without going to court: what amicable settlement can do for you

Two founders, two nearly identical trademarks, filed a few months apart for neighbouring services. The first one calls me, determined to “sue”. Eighteen months of proceedings ahead, a substantial budget, an uncertain outcome and, in the meantime, two businesses paralysed in their communications. We chose another path: a few weeks of negotiation, and a coexistence agreement delimiting each party’s signs, products and territories. The two trademarks now live side by side. Neither party had to incur what would have been substantial litigation costs.

Going to court is not always inevitable

The French civil justice system has now made amicable resolution a fully assumed policy. Decree No. 2025-660 of 18 July 2025 reformed conventional case preparation and recodified all amicable dispute resolution methods in the Code of Civil Procedure. Decree No. 2026-74 of 12 February 2026 established coordinating judges for amicable resolution within the courts. The message is clear: before ruling, judges expect the parties to have seriously considered a negotiated solution.

Mediation, conciliation, settlement: who does what

Mediation involves an independent third party, chosen by the parties or appointed by the judge, who helps them build their own solution. It may be conventional (initiated by the parties, before any proceedings) or judicial (proposed by the judge in the course of proceedings). Conciliation rests on the same principle, with a court conciliator. A settlement agreement, for its part, is the contract that formalises the agreement, even where it was reached without mediation or conciliation but through discussions between counsel: by reciprocal concessions, the parties end an existing dispute or prevent a dispute yet to arise (Article 2044 of the French Civil Code).

In mediation, your lawyer’s role is to assist and advise you: to explain the process and its rules, to stand alongside you during the mediation sessions, to handle the legal aspects and to advise you on whether an agreement is appropriate and on its scope.

Why intellectual property lends itself particularly well to it

I see four reasons for this, observed case after case:

• Confidentiality: a judgment is public, while the content of an agreement remains secret. When the dispute involves a trademark, know-how or a business relationship, confidentiality can be crucial
• Preserving business relationships: many intellectual property disputes pit partners against each other (licensee and licensor, former service provider, distributor). A trial decides; an agreement repairs
• Creative solutions: an agreement can organise trademark coexistence, a cross-licence, staggered payments or a limited non-compete clause — solutions that no judgment could put in place
• Cost and time: a few weeks of negotiation versus eighteen months or more of proceedings, not counting any appeal.

Negotiating does not weaken your position

My clients’ first fear: “if I negotiate, I show that my case is weak”. It is quite the opposite. Initiating mediation or conciliation suspends the limitation period (Article 2238 of the French Civil Code): you do not lose your right to take the matter to court while you are talking. Exchanges conducted within a mediation framework or between counsel are confidential and cannot subsequently be used before the judge. And a well-conducted negotiation is always carried out “subject to all rights”, in writing, with a litigation strategy ready to take over.

An agreement can have the force of a judgment

A well-drafted amicable agreement is nothing like a mere moral commitment. Between the parties, a settlement agreement has the authority of res judicata over the dispute it brings to an end. Once approved by the judge, it becomes enforceable: in the event of non-performance, it applies like a judgment, without any new proceedings on the merits. Drafting is therefore decisive: the exact scope of the concessions, the fate of trademark filings, confidentiality clauses, sanctions for non-performance.

When the amicable route is not the right one

I do not recommend the amicable route in all circumstances. Faced with massive infringement, commercial urgency or a bad-faith opponent, it is sometimes necessary to go straight to the judge: an infringement seizure (saisie-contrefaçon) to secure the evidence, interim proceedings to put an end to the harm. The amicable route and litigation are not mutually exclusive: they work together. Many cases are in fact resolved by an agreement… reached after a writ of summons has restored the balance of power. The key is to make that call from the outset, based on the evidence, the stakes and the opponent.

LAZULI assists companies and creators in the amicable resolution of their intellectual property disputes: pre-litigation strategy, negotiation, mediation, and the drafting of coexistence agreements and settlement agreements.

Jérémie LEROY-RINGUET, July 2026