The article considers the possibility of applying the institute of pre-use of patent law objects in relation to trademarks. The article analyzes the French and Russian judicial practice on the pre-use of an invention and a trademark. The conclusion about the compliance of the right of pre-use with the principle of inadmissibility of the prohibition to carry out business, at the expense of which the pre-user has already begun to extract income, is formulated. The main purpose of establishing the right of pre-use in the legislation is to preserve the possibility of choosing the method of protection of the invention by means of a patent or "know-how". The right of pre-use does not allow a person who has chosen to keep an invention secret to be deprived of the right to use it if a similar solution is patented by a third party. 

On the basis of a comparative analysis of French and Russian legislation on the right of pre-use for an invention, a judgment is made about the advantage of the Russian legal norm that provides for the actual use of the invention or making the necessary preparations for this. A number of positive criteria are highlighted, in particular, the participation of the patent owner in the dissemination of technical knowledge, as well as the availability of investments in the practical use of their scientific and technical solution before the priority date of the invention. In addition, it is necessary to recognize the limited nature of the right of pre-use in the case when the actual use or preparations made for this were discontinued on the date of priority of the invention. This position is justified, since the pre-user's refusal to use their solution means that they have refused to receive income from their investment investments. 

The main problem is that of the civil code, as French legislation does not provide for rights of prior use in respect of trademarks, which leads to imbalance of interests of the right holder and third parties. Existing in the doctrine, opinions on the possibility to provide in the legislation a special provision on prior use in respect of a trademark entails the problem of the definition of "use" designation of pre-deportation. The author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to establish criteria for significant use applied in French judicial practice. In the case of trademarks, it is not appropriate to use a quantitative indicator, since such qualification depends on the characteristics of the product or service sold in the relevant market. Significant use implies that the designation is used as an individualizing mark not only for demonstrative purposes, but in accordance with the main function of the trademark, which is to guarantee the quality and authenticity of the goods and services that it individualizes. In addition, significant use implies publicity in the sense that it should be open and obvious to current and potential customers of the goods or services. 

Qualification is considered separately as a significant sign of the use of a trademark in advertising. It is proposed to consider the use of the designation in advertising as essential if the advertising is accompanied by the simultaneous commercialization of goods and services and there is evidence of both the actual introduction of the product into civil circulation and its advertising.