The directory of French industrial property attorneys published by the INPI, the national industrial property institute. The title of conseil en propriété industrielle is regulated and the list is held by the state institute rather than by the profession’s own trade body.
Domain Rating is a dated Ahrefs snapshot of domain authority. PetroHrys Score is an independent editorial assessment of the directory’s practical business value. They are separate measurements and are never combined. Domain Rating values are dated historical Ahrefs snapshots. Domain Rating is a dated historical measurement of the shared domain, not an assessment of this individual registry page. New measurements are not collected because the Research Center does not depend on mandatory authenticated APIs. Where several registries are published on one measured domain they repeat that domain’s single dated snapshot rather than each carrying a figure of its own. Domain Rating is a third-party metric produced by their respective providers, not by PetroHrys.com. Each recorded value carries its provider and the date it was measured, and describes the domain that was measured rather than one page on it. No source has been consulted for authority score, estimated traffic and referring domains, so they are not published for any record.
Partly open Result rows were rendered to an anonymous client with no credential and no payment, showing firm name, legal form, address, telephone, email and specialisms, and the page reported 550 results at the time of verification. Free public reading is therefore observed rather than inferred. No filtered query was submitted, so behaviour under a specific search and any rate limit were not observed and stay null.
Official name
Annuaire des conseils en propriété industrielle
English title
Editorial translation
Hosting
This registry is a distinct system hosted on the shared inpi.fr platform.
Assessment
Strengths
It is published by the INPI itself, the state industrial property institute, rather than by the profession’s own organisation.
Results are readable without an account or payment, which is unusual among the professional registers in this dataset.
It can be narrowed by region and department, including the overseas departments, and by specialism between patents and trade marks, designs and models.
Entries show the practice, its legal form and the number of attorneys attached to it, so a reader sees the firm and its people together.
Limitations
The title of conseil en propriété industrielle is regulated, but the pages fetched do not establish whether any activity is reserved to the profession. This record therefore makes no claim that inclusion is a licence to practise, and none should be read into it.
The list records firms and the attorneys attached to them, so a result must be read carefully to know whether an individual or a practice has been returned.
Specialism labels distinguish patents from trade marks, designs and models, but they do not establish experience in any particular technology or trade.
The result count shown on entry reflects the unfiltered list at the moment of reading and is not a guaranteed total of the profession.
The list sits on the institute’s main domain alongside its industrial property registers, which are separate systems with a different purpose; a reader arriving from those should not read this as one of them.
Absence does not establish that a person may not advise on industrial property. Attorneys at law and other advisers work in the field without appearing on this list.
Submission guidance
Records are created through incorporation, registration, filing, or statutory processes.
Submission difficulty
Unknown
Typical listing quality
High
Typical approval time
Unknown
Review process
Unknown
Best for
Finding an industrial property attorney recognised by the French national IP institute.
Checking whether a firm holding itself out as a conseil en propriété industrielle appears on the institute’s list.
Not recommended for
Assuming the trade body is the register keeper. The list is published by the institute, not by the profession’s national company.
Judging an attorney’s competence in a technology. The list records specialism categories, not proven expertise.
Preparation checklist
No checklist recorded yet.
Common mistakes
No common mistakes recorded yet.
Establishing required submission assets requires submitting a listing and observing the result. That has not been done for any directory in this dataset, so it is not published rather than estimated.
What this directory accepts
Startups
Unknown
SaaS products
Unknown
Enterprises
Yes
Agencies
Unknown
Freelancers
Yes
Local businesses
Yes
Developer tools
Unknown
Open-source projects
Unknown
Non-profits
Unknown
AI products
Unknown
Mobile apps
Unknown
Ecommerce stores
Unknown
Recommended industries
intellectual-property
legal-services
professional-services
How the PetroHrys Score was reached
Editorial trust 15%
10 / 10How far the entries a directory publishes can be relied on as accurate.
Business usefulness 15%
8 / 10How much practical use a listing there is to the business being listed.
Verification quality 12%
9 / 10How thoroughly the directory establishes that an entry is genuine before publishing it.
Platform reputation 10%
9 / 10How the platform is regarded in its field. Deliberately not a popularity, traffic or recognition measure.
Spam resistance 10%
10 / 10How well the directory keeps low-quality and promotional entries out.
Industry importance 10%
8 / 10How central the directory is to its sector, independently of how useful one listing is.
Long-term stability 10%
9 / 10How likely the directory is to still exist, and to still carry the entry, years from now.
Submission quality 8%
6 / 10What the submission process asks for and how workable it is for the business submitting.
Transparency 5%
9 / 10How openly the directory states its rules, costs and criteria.
Moderation quality 5%
9 / 10How the directory maintains entries after publication.
The PetroHrys Score is a first-party editorial assessment, not a third-party
authority metric. It is the weighted sum of the ten factors above, divided by ten, so the number
on this page is reproducible from the values shown. Each factor is scored from 0 to 10 by a human reviewer and weighted as shown. The definitions describe what was weighed, not a rubric: no threshold or formula maps a directory onto a value, and two reviewers could reach different numbers. The score is reproducible from the factors shown on every record, but it is an editorial judgement, not a measurement.