Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
Contact

Dreyfus

Getty Images (US) Inc and Others v. Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch): An interesting case in AI and Intellectual Property Law

Written by Dreyfus19/02/2025

The recent High Court decision in Getty Images (US) Inc and Others v. Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch) has garnered significant attention, marking a pivotal moment in the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. This case addresses the complexities arising from the use of copyrighted materials in training AI models, setting a precedent for future disputes in this evolving field.

I – Background of the case

Getty Images, a renowned global visual content provider, initiated legal proceedings against Stability AI Ltd, an open-source generative AI company known for developing “Stable Diffusion,” a deep-learning model capable of generating images from textual descriptions.

Getty Images alleged that Stability AI unlawfully “scraped” millions of images from its websites without consent, utilizing these images to train and develop the Stable Diffusion model. Furthermore, Getty contended that the outputs of Stable Diffusion reproduced substantial parts of its copyrighted works and, in some instances, retained Getty’s watermarks, leading to claims of copyright infringement, database right infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off.

II – Legal framework

A – Copyright infringement

Under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), copyright infringement occurs when a substantial part of a protected work is reproduced without authorization. Getty Images argued that Stability AI’s use of its images in training the AI model constituted such reproduction, thereby infringing upon its exclusive rights.

B – Database rights

Getty also claimed infringement of its database rights, asserting that the compilation of its images constitutes a database protected under the CDPA. The unauthorized extraction and reutilization of these images by Stability AI were alleged to violate these rights.

C – Trademark infringement and passing off

The presence of Getty’s watermarks in the outputs of Stable Diffusion formed the basis of the trademark infringement and passing off claims. Getty contended that such use could mislead consumers regarding the origin of the images, potentially damaging its brand reputation.

III – Court’s analysis and findings

One of the key issues raised concerned territorial jurisdiction and the location of the alleged infringing acts. Stability AI argued that the training and development of the Stable Diffusion model had been conducted entirely outside the United Kingdom, primarily in the United States.

However, the High Court identified inconsistencies in the statements made by Stability AI’s CEO, Mr. Emad Mostaque, particularly regarding the involvement of UK-based employees and resources. As a result, the Court found that there were plausible grounds to suggest that certain disputed activities had taken place in the UK, warranting a more thorough examination at trial.

Getty sought to act on behalf of a group of approximately 50,000 copyright holders who had granted it exclusive licenses. However, the Court rejected this request, deeming the group’s definition too vague, as it depended on the outcome of the litigation. Additionally, the Court highlighted the practical difficulty of precisely identifying the specific works used to train Stable Diffusion in the UK, posing an additional obstacle to the admissibility of the collective action.

Finally, the Court considered whether the Stable Diffusion software could be classified as an “article” within the meaning of Sections 22 and 23 of the CDPA, which govern secondary infringement related to the importation, possession, or distribution of illicit copies. Traditionally limited to tangible goods, these provisions, according to the Court, could potentially be extended to intangible objects such as software, paving the way for a significant evolution of copyright law in the digital age.

IV – Implications of the decision

A – For AI development

This case underscores the necessity for AI developers to exercise caution when utilizing third-party materials in training models. The court’s willingness to consider software as an “article” for the purposes of secondary infringement suggests that developers could face liability for unauthorized use of protected works, even in the absence of direct copying.

B – For Intellectual Property rights holders

The decision highlights the challenges IP rights holders face in protecting their works against unauthorized use in AI development. The court’s approach to jurisdiction and the interpretation of existing legal frameworks may influence how rights holders structure their agreements and enforcement strategies in the context of emerging technologies.

Conclusion

The Getty Images v. Stability AI case represents an important development in the intersection of AI and IP law. The court’s findings on jurisdiction, representative actions, and the interpretation of statutory terms reflect the evolving legal landscape as it adapts to technological advancements. As AI continues to integrate into various sectors, this decision serves as a critical reference point for both developers and rights holders navigating the complexities of IP protection in the digital era.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

UDRP and ccTLDs: Essential Insights for Recovering a Local Domain Name

Written by Dreyfus18/02/2025

In today’s interconnected digital economy, domain names have become invaluable assets for businesses, serving as critical elements of their online identity and branding efforts. However, cybersquatting, the unauthorized registration of domain names, presents significant obstacles for brand protection. The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) offers a mechanism to address such disputes, but its applicability varies, especially concerning country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the UDRP’s relationship with ccTLDs and offers actionable advice for reclaiming local domain names.

Understanding the UDRP and Its Application to ccTLDs

The UDRP, established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), provides a streamlined process for resolving disputes related to the bad-faith registration of domain names. While the UDRP is universally applicable to generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) such as .com, .net, and .org, its application to ccTLDs is inconsistent.

Each ccTLD registry operates independently, and the adoption of the UDRP or a variant thereof is at the discretion of the individual registry. For instance, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administers dispute resolution services for numerous ccTLDs that have adopted the UDRP or its variants. Businesses must research and understand the rules applicable to their target ccTLD.

Key Considerations for Reclaiming Local Domain Names

  1. Registry Policies: Before initiating a claim, confirm whether the ccTLD registry adheres to the UDRP or an equivalent dispute resolution procedure. This information is often available on the registry’s official website or via WIPO’s online resources.
  2. Eligibility Criteria: To succeed under the UDRP, you must establish the following cumulative conditions:
  • The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark.
  • The registrant has no legitimate interests in the domain name.
  • The domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Trademark rights, even those unregistered in some jurisdictions, play a crucial role in demonstrating your case.

  1. Procedural Variations: Be aware that while some ccTLDs have adopted the UDRP in its entirety, others may have tailored processes with specific submission requirements, timelines, and fees. Familiarize yourself with the specific procedures and requirements of the relevant ccTLD.

Steps to Initiate a Domain Dispute Under the UDRP

  1. Preparation: Gather evidence supporting your claim, including proof of trademark rights, instances of the domain’s bad-faith use, and any correspondence with the registrant.
  2. Filing the Complaint: Submit a formal complaint to an accredited dispute resolution provider, such as WIPO or the Forum. The complaint should detail the basis of the dispute and the relief sought, typically the transfer of the domain name.
  3. Administrative Proceedings: Once the complaint is filed and accepted, the registrant will be notified and given the opportunity to respond. A panel of experts will evaluate submissions from both parties and issue a decision, often within 60 days.
  4. Implementation of Decision: If the decision favors the complainant, the domain name will be transferred after a brief period, provided no court action is initiated by the registrant.

Conclusion

Recovering a ccTLD domain name registered in bad faith requires not only a strong understanding of the UDRP but also the nuances of local registry rules. By diligently preparing your case, navigating registry-specific procedures, and engaging experienced professionals, you can effectively reclaim domain names that align with your trademark rights.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in navigating the complexities of domain name disputes across various jurisdictions. Our partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property ensures that we provide comprehensive and effective solutions tailored to your needs.

 

FAQ 

What is a country code top-level domain (ccTLD)?

A country code top-level domain (ccTLD) is a two-letter domain extension assigned to a specific country or territory, based on ISO 3166-1 country codes. Examples include .fr for France, .de for Germany, and .uk for the United Kingdom. These domains are generally managed by national organizations and may have specific registration requirements.

What is the EU country code top-level domain?

The ccTLD for the European Union is .eu. It is managed by EURid (European Registry for Internet Domains) and is available to businesses, organizations, and individuals residing in the EU or the European Economic Area (EEA).

What country code top-level domain is France?

France’s ccTLD is .fr. It is administered by AFNIC (Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération). Registrants must meet certain residency or business presence requirements in France.

Can anyone use country domains?

Not necessarily. The eligibility to register a ccTLD varies by country:

  • Open ccTLDs: Some, like .co (Colombia) and .io (British Indian Ocean Territory), are widely available for international use.
  • Restricted ccTLDs: Others, like .fr (France), .us (United States), and .ca (Canada), require a local presence or a registered business in the respective country.
    Always check the registration policies of the ccTLD before attempting to register.

What is the difference between a TLD and a ccTLD?

A TLD (Top-Level Domain) is the highest level in the domain name system (DNS). TLDs are divided into two categories:

  • gTLDs (Generic Top-Level Domains): These are not country-specific and include .com, .org, .net, .info, and .shop.
  • ccTLDs (Country Code Top-Level Domains): These are assigned to specific countries or territories, such as .fr, .uk, .de, .jp.
    While gTLDs are generally open for global registration, ccTLDs may have specific rules restricting their use to residents or businesses within a country.

Partner with us to safeguard your digital assets across jurisdictions.

The Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

ICANN 81: Navigating the Future of Internet Governance

Written by Dreyfus17/02/2025

ICANN’s Annual General Meeting serves as a cornerstone for discussions on internet governance, policy development, and technical advancements. The 81st meeting in Istanbul was no exception, offering a platform for diverse voices to influence the trajectory of the digital landscape.

Key Highlights

Focus on New gTLDs

A significant portion of ICANN 81 was dedicated to the forthcoming application window for new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), scheduled for the second quarter of 2026. This marks the first opportunity since 2012 for entities to apply for new gTLDs, signaling a monumental shift in domain name expansion. The anticipated release of the updated Applicant Guidebook in early 2025 underscores ICANN’s commitment to a streamlined and efficient application process.

Enhancements in DNS Security

Addressing DNS abuse and enhancing security protocols were paramount during the sessions. Discussions centered on implementing robust measures to mitigate threats, ensuring a safer and more resilient Domain Name System.

Emphasis on the Multistakeholder Model

Reaffirming its dedication to inclusive governance, ICANN highlighted the importance of the multistakeholder model. Engaging various stakeholders, from governments to private entities and civil society, remains crucial for balanced and effective internet governance.

Detailed Session Overviews

New gTLD Program Implementation

The session delved into the specifics of the upcoming gTLD application process. Key topics included applicant support mechanisms, evaluation criteria, and timelines, providing prospective applicants with essential insights.

DNS Abuse Mitigation Strategies

Experts presented comprehensive strategies to combat DNS abuse. Emphasis was placed on collaboration between registries, registrars, and law enforcement agencies to detect and prevent malicious activities.

Universal Acceptance Initiatives

Promoting the acceptance of all valid domain names and email addresses, regardless of script or length, was a focal point. Initiatives aimed at achieving true universality in internet access and communication were discussed extensively.

Looking Ahead to ICANN 82

Building on the momentum from ICANN 81, the upcoming ICANN 82 Community Forum is scheduled from March 8 to 13, 2025, at the Hyatt Regency Seattle Hotel in the United States. As the first meeting in the annual cycle, the Community Forum emphasizes internal work of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, cross-community interactions, and plenary sessions on topics of community-wide interest. Participants can anticipate in-depth discussions on policy development, technical updates, and strategic planning for the future of internet governance.

Conclusion

ICANN 81 in Istanbul marked a significant milestone in the ongoing evolution of internet governance. The deliberations and decisions made during this meeting have set the stage for future developments, ensuring that the internet remains secure, inclusive, and resilient. As a recognized expert in domain name law and digital brand protection, Dreyfus Law Firm closely monitors these regulatory changes and their impact on businesses. Our firm provides strategic guidance to help clients navigate the complexities of internet governance, enforce their rights against cybersquatting, and anticipate new compliance requirements. With our deep expertise in ICANN policies and domain name dispute resolution, we support companies in safeguarding their online presence and adapting to the ever-changing digital landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is ICANN?

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a nonprofit organization responsible for coordinating the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces and numerical spaces of the internet, ensuring its stable and secure operation.

What are gTLDs?

Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) are one of the categories of top-level domains (TLDs) maintained by ICANN. Examples include .com, .org, and .net.

When is the next application window for new gTLDs?

The next application window for new gTLDs is scheduled for the second quarter of 2026.

What is the multistakeholder model?

The multistakeholder model is a governance structure that brings together all stakeholders, including businesses, civil society, governments, and technical experts, to participate in policy development processes.

Where can I find more information about ICANN meetings?

Detailed information about past and upcoming ICANN meetings can be found on the official ICANN meetings website.

The Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

Understanding the French Trademark Office INPI Decision of October 7, 2024: Implications for Trademark Opposition Procedures

Written by Dreyfus11/02/2025

On October 7, 2024, the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) delivered its much-anticipated ruling in case NL 23-0255. The decision, which examined the interplay of trademarks, trade names, and domain names under intellectual property law, rejected LPB SAS’s nullity claims against the contested mark “Les P’tites Bombes LPB.” This ruling highlights critical principles in trademark opposition proceedings, offering key insights into risk of confusion, proof of usage, and procedural nuances.

Understanding the Background of the Dispute

Parties and Context

The case involved LPB SAS, the claimant, challenging the trademark “Les P’tites Bombes LPB,” registered in May 2019. The opposition was based on earlier rights, including:

  • The corporate name “LPB”;
  • The trade name “Les P’tites Bombes”;
  • The domain name lespetitesbombes.com.

LPB SAS argued the contested trademark created a risk of confusion due to the similarity of signs and overlapping goods and services.

LPB SAS argued a risk of confusion, asserting similarity in signs and overlapping goods and services.

Legal Analysis

Applicable Law

The contested trademark was evaluated under provisions in place at the time of its registration. Articles L.711-2, L.711-3, and L.714-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code set forth conditions for nullity, requiring proof of:

  • Earlier rights such as trade names or domain names;
  • A likelihood of confusion between the contested mark and these earlier rights.

Earlier Rights

Under French intellectual property law, trademarks can be opposed based on earlier rights, including:

  • Corporate names: Identifiers of legal entities conducting business. The INPI confirmed LPB SAS’s prior use of its corporate name for wholesale fashion activities. However, the institute found no evidence linking LPB SAS’s corporate name to goods or services overlapping with the contested mark, and insufficient demonstration of confusion due to differences in the signs’ overall impressions.
  • Trade names: Commercial identifiers associated with a specific business reputation. While LPB SAS substantiated limited usage of its trade name, the INPI held that the claimant failed to demonstrate nationwide recognition.
  • Domain names: Online identifiers with established goodwill or recognition. LPB SAS asserted long-standing exploitation of this domain for e-commerce. However, most evidence provided, including web analytics and sales data, was dated after the trademark’s registration. As a result, the INPI ruled out effective use predating May 2019.

Likelihood of Confusion: A Holistic Perspective:

The INPI evaluated confusion using the following factors:

  • Visual and phonetic differences: The contested mark and earlier rights shared limited similarity.
  • Distinctiveness: The claimant failed to show that the earlier rights were distinctive enough to create confusion.
  • Consumer perception: An average consumer with moderate attention would not likely confuse the contested mark with the earlier rights.

The cumulative analysis negated the existence of a risk of confusion.

Practical Implications for Businesses

Clarifying the Burden of Proof

The decision highlights the necessity for claimants to present robust, contemporaneous evidence of their earlier rights’ usage and recognition. Post-registration documentation cannot substantiate claims of prior use. Claimants must demonstrate:

  • Effective prior use of earlier rights;
  • Nationwide recognition where applicable.

Scope of Trademark Nullity

This decision underscores the need to narrowly tailor nullity claims, ensuring:

  • Clear alignment between earlier rights and the contested mark’s goods and services.
  • Direct evidence of overlap and potential consumer confusion.

Broader Legal and Strategic Takeaways

From a strategic perspective, this case exemplifies the challenges businesses face in protecting legacy rights against newer trademarks. Businesses must maintain comprehensive, dated records of usage, reputation, and consumer recognition to safeguard their intellectual property and support future litigation or opposition.

Procedural Changes in Trademark Opposition

The case reflects procedural shifts in French trademark law, notably:

  • Stricter evidentiary requirements.
  • A more streamlined opposition process.

To succeed in nullity claims, opponents must present:

  • Detailed documentation of prior use.
  • Proof of consumer recognition.
  • Clear articulation of harm resulting from potential confusion.

Conclusion

The INPI’s decision in NL 23-0255 sets a high bar for nullity claims and reinforces the importance of proactive intellectual property management. For trademark holders, the ruling serves as a critical reminder to document and safeguard rights effectively.

About Dreyfus Law Firm

Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, providing expert guidance on trademark protection and opposition procedures. Our global network of attorneys ensures comprehensive solutions tailored to your business needs. Subscribe to our newsletter or follow us on social media for the latest insights in IP law.

FAQ 

What is a trademark opposition in France?

A trademark opposition in France is a legal procedure allowing the holder of earlier rights (such as a prior trademark, trade name, or business name) to oppose the registration of a later mark that may infringe upon their rights. The opposition must be filed with the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) within two months from the publication of the trademark application in the Official Bulletin of Industrial Property (BOPI). The opponent must provide evidence of a likelihood of confusion between their earlier trademark and the contested application.

What is the opposition procedure for WIPO?

For International Trademarks filed under the Madrid System, opposition procedures vary depending on the designated country. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) itself does not handle oppositions; instead, once an international application is published in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, each designated country examines the mark according to its national law. Any third party wishing to oppose the registration must do so directly with the national or regional IP office (e.g., INPI for France, EUIPO for the European Union) within the applicable opposition period.

How is EU trademark opposition processed?

In the European Union, trademark oppositions are handled by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

  • The opposition must be filed within three months of the publication of the EU trademark application in the EU Trademark Bulletin.
  • The opponent must be the owner of an earlier registered trademark or other prior rights.
  • The opposition process consists of a cooling-off period (for possible settlement), followed by an adversarial phase where both parties submit arguments and evidence.
  • The EUIPO then issues a decision, which can be appealed before the Board of Appeal and subsequently before the General Court of the European Union.

What invalidates a trademark?

A trademark can be invalidated if it does not comply with legal requirements. Common grounds for invalidation include:

  • Lack of distinctiveness: The mark is purely descriptive or generic.
  • Earlier conflicting rights: A third party holds prior rights to a similar or identical trademark.
  • Bad faith registration: The mark was filed dishonestly, such as to block competitors.
  • Deceptive nature: The mark misleads consumers about the nature, quality, or origin of the goods/services.
  • Non-use: If a registered trademark is not used for five consecutive years, it may be subject to cancellation for non-use.

How to deal with trademark infringement?

If you believe your trademark is being infringed, you should take immediate action to protect your rights. Possible steps include:

  • Sending a cease-and-desist letter to the infringer, requesting them to stop using the mark.
  • Negotiating an amicable settlement to avoid litigation.
  • Initiating administrative procedures such as opposition or cancellation actions before the relevant IP office.
  • Filing a legal action for trademark infringement before national courts.
  • Monitoring and enforcing your rights by conducting regular brand surveillance to detect unauthorized use.

What is the action for trademark infringement?

Trademark infringement actions typically involve:

  1. Filing a lawsuit before a competent court: The trademark owner must provide evidence of infringement.
  2. Provisional measures: The court may grant injunctions to stop unauthorized use before a final decision is reached.
  3. Damages and penalties: Courts may award financial compensation for losses suffered due to the infringement.
  4. Seizure of infringing goods: Counterfeit or infringing products may be confiscated.
  5. Criminal proceedings (in serious cases): Infringement may be subject to fines or imprisonment, depending on national laws.

    Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

    Join us on social media!

    LinkedIn  

    Instagram

Read More

The Challenges of the UDRP Procedure in the Face of the Rise of New gTLDs

Written by Dreyfus11/02/2025

The digital landscape has undergone significant transformations with the introduction of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). This expansion presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly concerning the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). As experts in intellectual property law, we aim to elucidate the complexities that brand owners face in navigating the UDRP amidst the proliferation of new gTLDs. This article will provide an overview of the UDRP procedure, discuss the implications of new gTLDs, and explore how brand owners can adapt their strategies to address these challenges.

Understanding the UDRP: A Framework for Resolving Domain Disputes

Definition and Purpose

Established in 1999 by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the UDRP provides a streamlined mechanism for resolving disputes related to domain names. Its primary objective is to address cases where domain names are registered and used in bad faith, infringing upon trademark rights.

Key Criteria for Filing a Complaint

To initiate a UDRP proceeding, a complainant must demonstrate that:

  • The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.
  • The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
  • The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

These criteria ensure that the UDRP targets clear cases of abusive domain name registrations.

The Impact of New gTLDs on the Domain Landscape

Expansion of the Domain Name System

In 2012, ICANN launched the New gTLD Program, significantly expanding the number of available gTLDs beyond the traditional ones like <.com>, <.org>, and <.net>. This initiative introduced a plethora of new extensions, such as <.shop>, <.tech>, and <.paris>, aiming to enhance consumer choice and foster competition. For instance, <.shop> has been widely adopted by e-commerce businesses, while <.tech> has gained traction among technology companies.

Opportunities and Risks for Brand Owners

While new gTLDs offer brand owners the chance to secure domain names that align closely with their trademarks and industries, they also pose increased risks of cybersquatting. The vast array of new extensions provides malicious actors with more avenues to register domain names that infringe upon established trademarks.

Challenges Posed by New gTLDs to the UDRP

Increased Potential for Cybersquatting

The surge in gTLDs has led to a corresponding rise in cybersquatting incidents. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), there has been a notable increase in UDRP cases, with a record number of complaints filed in recent years. WIPO reported a 20% increase in UDRP cases filed between 2015 and 2020, demonstrating the growing impact of cybersquatting in the era of new gTLDs.

Complexity in Brand Protection Strategies

Brand owners now face the daunting task of monitoring and protecting their trademarks across a vastly expanded domain landscape. This complexity necessitates more comprehensive surveillance and enforcement strategies to safeguard intellectual property effectively.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues

The introduction of numerous gTLDs has also led to jurisdictional challenges, as different registries may have varying policies and procedures. This fragmentation can complicate the enforcement of UDRP decisions and the overall dispute resolution process. For example, the variation in registry policies across jurisdictions, such as Europe and Asia, often creates hurdles for uniform enforcement of UDRP decisions.

Adaptations and Responses

Evolution of the UDRP Framework

In response to the evolving domain landscape, there have been discussions about reforming the UDRP to address new challenges effectively. Proposals include introducing financial penalties for cybersquatters and extending response times for respondents. However, such changes must be balanced against the need to maintain the UDRP’s efficiency and effectiveness.

Introduction of the URS Procedure

To complement the UDRP, ICANN introduced the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system, designed for clear-cut cases of infringement. The URS offers a faster and more cost-effective means of suspending infringing domain names but does not provide for their transfer to the complainant.

Recommendations for Brand Owners

Given the complexities introduced by new gTLDs, brand owners should:

  • Develop a robust domain name strategy that includes registering key trademarks across relevant gTLDs.
  • Implement continuous monitoring to detect and address potential infringements promptly.
  • Utilize mechanisms like the Trademark Clearinghouse to safeguard their rights during the launch of new gTLDs.

Brand owners should also consider employing AI-powered tools to automate the monitoring of domain name registrations across multiple gTLDs.

Conclusion

The proliferation of new gTLDs has undeniably transformed the domain name ecosystem, presenting both opportunities and challenges for brand owners. While the UDRP remains a vital tool for combating cybersquatting, it must evolve to address the nuances introduced by the expanded gTLD space. As the domain name landscape continues to evolve, staying ahead requires not only vigilance but also an adaptable strategy that leverages legal and technological advancements.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we offer comprehensive services to protect and enforce your domain name rights, including proactive domain name monitoring, strategic enforcement actions, UDRP complaints, and tailored solutions for brand protection in the digital space. Our expertise spans domain name recovery, litigation, and cybersecurity strategies to mitigate the risks posed by online infringement and cybersquatting.

 

For tailored advice on navigating the complexities of domain name protection, subscribe to our newsletter or contact Dreyfus Law Firm for expert guidance.

 

FAQ

How does UDRP work?

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is an administrative process designed to resolve disputes over domain names that have been registered in bad faith. Complainants must demonstrate that:

  • The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark.
  • The domain holder has no legitimate rights or interests in the name.
  • The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Decisions under the UDRP are made by dispute resolution providers, such as WIPO, and can result in the transfer or cancellation of the domain.

What are the grounds for a domain name dispute?

A domain name dispute arises when a domain name is alleged to have been registered in bad faith, infringing upon trademark rights. Under the UDRP, the cumulative  grounds for a complaint are:

  • The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by the complainant.
  • The domain registrant has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name.
  • The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, such as for cybersquatting or phishing.

What is UDRP top-level domains?

UDRP applies to generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) such as <.com>, <.org>, <.net>, and to new gTLDs like .shop and .tech, as well as country-code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) that have voluntarily adopted the UDRP framework.

What are examples of gTLDs?

Examples of traditional gTLDs include:

  • .com
  • .org
  • .net
  • .info
  • .biz

New gTLDs introduced under the ICANN expansion program include:

  • .shop
  • .tech
  • .law
  • .paris
  • .bank

Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

AI and Copyright: Understanding the U.S. Copyright Office’s Second Report on Copyrightability

Written by Dreyfus10/02/2025

The evolution of AI and Copyright

The United States Copyright Office has released the second part of its comprehensive study on artificial intelligence and copyrightability. This latest report, dated January 29th 2025, titled “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability“, delves into one of the most contentious legal questions of the modern digital era: Can AI-generated content receive copyright protection?

As AI tools like ChatGPT, MidJourney, and DALL·E continue to evolve, artists, musicians, and content creators are leveraging these technologies to assist in their creative processes. However, where does the boundary between human creativity and AI automation lie? This report provides critical insights into how the U.S. Copyright Office currently addresses AI-generated works and their copyrightability.

Background: A recap of Part 1 – Digital Replicas

Before discussing AI-generated works, it is essential to recall the findings from the first part of the U.S. Copyright Office’s AI report, which focused on digital replicas (e.g., deepfakes and AI-generated voices). Key takeaways from Part 1:

  • Digital replicas (AI-generated likenesses of individuals) raise significant legal and ethical concerns.
  • The report emphasized the lack of clear legal frameworks to address the unauthorized replication of an individual’s image or voice.
  • The Copyright Office recommended further legislative action to protect against AI-generated deepfakes and potential misuse of identity rights.

With Part 2, the focus has now shifted to an equally pressing issue: the copyrightability of AI-generated content.

AI-Generated works and copyrightability

The fundamental question addressed in Part 2 of the report is: To what extent can AI-generated content be considered copyrightable under U.S. law?

1 – Human authorship requirement

According to the U.S. Copyright Act, only works created by a human author qualify for copyright protection. The Copyright Office reaffirms this principle, stating that:

  • Copyright protection does not extend to material generated wholly by AI.
  • AI-assisted works may qualify for copyright protection if there is sufficient human involvement in the creative process.
  • The determination of copyrightability will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

There is a key precedent: Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023) – The U.S. courts upheld that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted, reinforcing the human authorship requirement.

2 – The role of AI in creativity

The Copyright Office differentiates between AI as a tool and AI as an autonomous creator.

  • AI as an assistive tool meaning that if AI is used to enhance human creativity, the final work may be eligible for copyright protection.
  • AI as an autonomous creator meaning that if AI produces a work without human creative input, it cannot be copyrighted.

For example: a human artist using Photoshop, AI-based filters, or generative AI as part of their creative workflow can still claim copyright. However, a fully AI-generated artwork created without human selection, arrangement, or modification is not copyrightable.

3 – The significance of prompts

One of the most controversial topics covered in the Copyrightability Report is whether AI-generated content based on human prompts qualifies for copyright protection.

The Copyright Office’s stance:

  • Writing a prompt alone is not sufficient for copyright protection.
  • Prompts must involve “sufficient creative expression” and “substantive human input” to be considered authorship.
  • A person modifying, arranging, or selecting elements of AI-generated content may qualify for partial copyright protection.

Therefore, an AI-generated images or texts created using a prompt may not belong to the user unless they demonstrate clear human creativity in the final output.

4 – Legal analysis and international approaches

Different countries are addressing AI and copyright in varying ways:

  • United States: AI-generated content is not eligible for copyright protection unless there is substantial human involvement.
  • United Kingdom: AI-generated works may receive limited protection under existing copyright laws.
  • European Union: The EU AI Act mentions the obligation for AI systems to comply with intellectual property rights.
  • China: AI-generated works can be copyrighted, but liability and authorship rules remain ambiguous.

The lack of global harmonization in AI and copyright laws could create significant legal uncertainties for creators using AI worldwide.

Implications and potential legal changes

The Copyright Office recognizes the complexity of AI copyrightability and explores potential legal reforms, including:

  • Clarification of “substantial human involvement” in AI-assisted works.
  • New guidelines for AI-generated content registration.
  • Possible introduction of a sui generis (unique) legal framework for AI-generated creative works.

However, the report does not recommend legislative changes at this time, instead emphasizing case-by-case assessments.

Conclusion: The Future of AI and Copyright

The U.S. Copyright Office’s second report on AI and copyrightability establishes that:

  • AI-generated works are not independently copyrightable unless there is clear human authorship.
  • Prompts alone do not establish copyright ownership.
  • The legal framework remains flexible but requires further clarification.

As AI technology continues to evolve, creators, businesses, and policymakers must navigate an uncertain legal landscape.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions in the evolving field of AI and copyright.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

 

Read More

French Trademark Office INPI Decision of September 13, 2024: Bad Faith Trademark Filing and Its Implications

Written by Dreyfus10/02/2025

The INPI’s decision of September 13, 2024, in case NL 23-0183, addresses the critical issue of bad faith in trademark law. The cancellation of the “POMPON” trademark, which was registered to monopolize a name linked to the renowned sculptor François Pompon, underscores the misuse of intellectual property rights for undue commercial advantage. This article dissects the legal reasoning, evidence, and implications of this decision for businesses operating in intellectual property and cultural heritage sectors.

Case Summary

Background

The trademark “POMPON,” registered by a museum boutique operator, faced cancellation proceedings initiated by Dixit Arte SAS. The latter argued that the registration aimed to monopolize the name “Pompon,” associated with the renowned sculptor François Pompon, whose works are part of the public domain.

Key Arguments

At the heart of the case were allegations of bad faith. The plaintiff contended that the trademark holder sought to exploit the public domain status of François Pompon’s name by imposing licensing fees on other legitimate users. This was seen as an attempt to gain undue control over a name that should remain accessible to all stakeholders within the art and heritage sector. The registrant countered that the trademark was filed to protect the integrity of Pompon’s legacy and ensure high-quality reproductions.

Legal Framework

Establishing Bad Faith

The INPI based its decision on Article L.714-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which allows for the cancellation of trademarks filed in bad faith. It requires a comprehensive assessment of the registrant’s intent at the time of filing, as established by European case law. Factors such as knowledge of prior use by third parties and the broader context of the registration play a decisive role in determining bad faith.

The Role of Evidence in Establishing Intent

Key factors included the registrant’s activity as the manager of museum boutiques in Dijon, which gave him direct exposure to Dixit Arte’s products. Additionally, email correspondence proposing royalty-bearing licenses substantiated the claim that the registration was a deliberate attempt to monetize a name integral to the public domain. The registrant’s argument of safeguarding the artist’s legacy was found to lack credibility given the financial motivations reflected in the evidence.

Decision and Implications

Cancellation of the Trademark

The INPI concluded that the “POMPON” trademark was filed with the intent of creating an undue monopoly on a public domain name. By restricting access to a term essential for the reproduction and sale of François Pompon’s works, the registrant sought to exploit the trademark system in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose.

Implications for Future Trademark Applications

This decision underscores the necessity of ensuring good faith in trademark applications, particularly in cases involving public domain elements. Businesses must exercise due diligence to confirm that their filings align with the principles of fairness and do not obstruct legitimate commercial practices. This ruling also highlights the importance of preserving access to cultural heritage symbols for all stakeholders.

Broader Lessons from the Decision

Safeguarding Public Domain Names

The decision underscores that names linked to public domain works, such as those of François Pompon, should remain freely available to stakeholders. Attempts to impose exclusivity through trademark registration risk contravening the principles of intellectual property law.

Ethical Licensing Practices

The case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and fairness in licensing agreements. Leveraging trademarks to extract royalties on public domain names undermines the spirit of free competition and innovation.

Conclusion

The cancellation of the “POMPON” trademark by the INPI sets a precedent against bad faith filings, emphasizing the need for ethical practices in intellectual property management. Businesses must align trademark strategies with the principles of fairness and competition.

For expert guidance on trademark filing and enforcement strategies, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter. Stay informed about critical updates in intellectual property law and leverage our expertise to safeguard your brand’s integrity.

Our firm specializes in trademark protection, ensuring compliance with legal frameworks while maximizing commercial value. Contact us to discuss tailored strategies for your business needs.

For more insights into navigating trademark filings and intellectual property strategies, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media. Our team specializes in providing comprehensive, client-focused advice to help you protect your brand and ensure compliance with evolving legal standards.

The Dreyfus firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property specialists.

Follow us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram

 

FAQ

What is bad faith in trademark?

Bad faith in trademark law refers to a situation where an applicant files for a trademark with dishonest intentions. This may include registering a mark solely to block competitors, exploit the reputation of an existing brand, or prevent others from using a term that should remain available in the public domain.

What is bad faith EU trademark?

In the EU, bad faith is defined under Article 59(1)(b) of the EU Trademark Regulation. It applies when a trademark application is filed with the intention of misleading, obstructing competitors, or unfairly benefiting from another party’s reputation. The European courts assess factors such as prior knowledge of third-party use, the applicant’s commercial strategy, and any attempt to abuse trademark law.

How do you cancel a trademark?

A trademark can be canceled through invalidity or revocation proceedings:

  • Invalidity: If the mark was registered in bad faith, lacks distinctiveness, or infringes prior rights.
  • Revocation: If the trademark has not been used for a continuous period of five years or has become misleading to consumers.
    Proceedings can be initiated before the relevant intellectual property office (e.g., EUIPO, INPI) or in court, depending on the jurisdiction.

How to withdraw a trademark?

A trademark can be withdrawn voluntarily by submitting a request to the relevant trademark office. The applicant or owner may request total or partial withdrawal, meaning it may apply to all goods/services or just specific ones.

How do you protect your domain name?

To protect a domain name:

  1. Register it promptly to prevent third-party claims.
  2. Monitor for potential cybersquatting using watch services.
  3. Secure trademarks corresponding to the domain name, strengthening enforcement rights.
  4. Enforce rights through legal actions, such as Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) or national court procedures.

What are the conflicts of trademarks with domain names?

Conflicts arise when a domain name incorporates a registered trademark without authorization. Key issues include:

  • Cybersquatting: A third party registers a domain with the intent to profit from the trademark owner.
  • Trademark infringement: If a domain creates confusion among consumers, misleading them into thinking it is affiliated with the trademark owner.
  • Reverse domain name hijacking: When a company tries to obtain a domain name illegitimately by claiming false trademark rights.

Resolving such conflicts may involve legal action under UDRP, court proceedings, or negotiations with the domain holder.

Read More

Understanding UDRP Jurisprudence: Key Decisions and Practical Insights

Written by Dreyfus05/02/2025

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) was established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1999 to provide a streamlined and cost-effective for resolving disputes related to domain name registrations. This policy effectively addresses challenges such as cybersquatting and trademark infringement in the constant evolving digital landscape. Over the past two decades, UDRP precedent has evolved significantly, setting critical benchmarks that guide current and future domain name dispute resolutions.

Key Cases Shaping UDRP Jurisprudence

Madonna.com: Protecting Celebrity Names

In Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Parisi (2000), Madonna filed a complaint against Dan Parisi and challenged the registration of <madonna.com>, which was used to redirect users to inappropriate content. The WIPO panel ruled in favor of Madonna, emphasizing her rights as a globally recognized artist and the protection afforded by her established trademarks. This case underscored UDRP’s role in safeguarding celebrity identities against misuse.

Takeaway: In these types of cases, demonstrating fame and trademark rights, even for personal names, is crucial to success under UDRP.

Panavision.com: Battling Cybersquatting

Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen (1999) sets the stage for addressing cybersquatting. The respondent, Dennis Toeppen, registered <panavision.com> to demand payment from the trademark holder. The panel ruled this conduct constituted bad faith, highlighting the UDRP’s utility in combating such exploitative practices.

Takeaway: Registering domains primarily for financial extortion constitutes clear evidence of bad faith.

Sting.com: Navigating Generic Terms

In Sumner p/k/a Sting v. Urvan (2000), the musician Sting failed to secure the domain <sting.com>, as the respondent demonstrated its generic nature and lack of exclusive association with the complainant. The panel noted that UDRP protects trademarks, not dictionary words, unless secondary meaning is proven.

Takeaway: The generic nature of a domain name complicates claims under the UDRP unless clear trademark rights are demonstrated.

Wal-MartSucks.com: Protecting Trademarks from Misuse

This case involved the domain <wal-martsucks.com>, registered by Richard MacLeod. The panel concluded that MacLeod had registered the domain in bad faith, aiming to attract users by creating confusion with the Wal-Mart trademark. The decision emphasized the UDRP’s stance against domains that incorporate trademarks to mislead or criticize without legitimate non-commercial use.

Takeaway: The UDRP consistently upholds the principle that domain names incorporating trademarks cannot be used to mislead, tarnish, or exploit the brand’s reputation under the guise of criticism unless supported by legitimate non-commercial use. This case reinforces the need for complainants to demonstrate how such domains create confusion or harm their brand’s integrity.

Trends and Practical Recommendations for UDRP Practitioners

Rising Caseloads:

WIPO reported over 6,000 cases in 2023, marking a 7% increase from the previous year. This surge reflects the growing challenges faced by brand owners in protecting their trademarks online. Notably, 82% of these cases resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainants, demonstrating the effectiveness of the UDRP process in addressing cybersquatting. With the introduction of new gTLDs, vigilance and proactive measures are essential for brand protection.

Critical Elements for Success:

Complainants must establish:

  • The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark.
  • The respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain.
  • The domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Strategic Considerations:

  • Preemptive Registrations: Secure key domains proactively.
  • Evidence Collection: Document respondent behavior indicating bad faith.
  • Supplementary Responses: Address gaps or rebuttals proactively where panels permit.

Practical Examples:

  • com: This case demonstrated the value of early action when the complainant reclaimed her name from misuse in an auction setting.
  • com: Highlighted the necessity of proving bad faith beyond legitimate business use to succeed under the UDRP.

Conclusion: The Role of Expertise in Domain Disputes

The evolution of UDRP jurisprudence over the past two decades has provided a robust, internationally recognized framework for resolving domain name disputes efficiently. Landmark decisions have clarified the policy’s application, balancing the rights of trademark holders with legitimate domain name registrants. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, staying informed about UDRP developments and best practice is crucial for brand owners and legal practitioners alike.

FAQ on UDRP and Domain Name Disputes

  1. What are the three elements of UDRP?
    The UDRP requires the complainant to prove: (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which they have rights, (2) the domain holder has no legitimate interests in the domain, and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
  2. What are the grounds for a domain name dispute?
    A domain name dispute arises when a registered domain is alleged to infringe on another party’s trademark rights. Common grounds include cybersquatting, bad faith registration, and unauthorized commercial use of a trademarked term.
  3. What is the UDRP dispute-resolution policy?
    The UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) is a procedure established by ICANN for resolving domain name disputes related to trademark infringement. It provides an alternative to litigation, allowing trademark owners to recover domains through arbitration.
  4. What are the three key domains?
    In domain name disputes, the three key domains often refer to: (1) Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) such as .com, .net, and .org, (2) Country Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) like .fr or .uk, and (3) New gTLDs introduced to expand the domain space (e.g., .store, .tech).

 

For comprehensive assistance in navigating domain name disputes and protecting your intellectual property rights, our firm offers expert legal services tailored to your needs. Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

The Dreyfus firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property specialists.

Follow us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v. Datel Design and Development Ltd (Case C-159/23)

Written by Dreyfus04/02/2025

On October 17, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v. Datel Design and Development Ltd (Case C-159/23). This decision addresses the extent of copyright protection for computer programs under Directive 2009/24/EC, particularly concerning software that modifies variable data during program execution without altering the program’s source or object code.

Background of the case

Sony, a leading developer and distributor of PlayStation consoles and associated video games, initiated legal proceedings against Datel, a company specializing in software and devices that interact with gaming consoles. It identified that Datel was marketing products such as the “Action Replay PSP” software and the “TiltFX” device. These products allowed users to alter gameplay by unlocking features or modifying controls, achieved by running concurrently with Sony’s games and altering variable data in the console’s random access memory (RAM) during execution. Sony contended that such modifications infringed upon its exclusive rights to authorize alterations of its computer programs, as protected under Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs.

Legal questions referred to the CJEU: Analysis and judgment

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) referred two primary questions to the CJEU:

  1. Scope of Protection: Does the modification of variables transferred to a computer’s RAM by a protected program, without altering its source or object code, fall within the protection afforded under Article 1(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/24/EC?
  2. Definition of Alteration: Does such modification constitute an “alteration” under Article 4(1)(b) of the Directive, which grants the copyright holder exclusive rights to authorize or prohibit any alteration of their computer program?

In its deliberation, the CJEU focused on the interpretation of “forms of expression” of a computer program as protected under Article 1 of Directive 2009/24/EC. The Court emphasized that protection extends to the program’s source code and object code, as these are the expressions that enable the reproduction or subsequent creation of the program. Conversely, elements such as functionalities, programming languages, and data file formats do not constitute protected forms of expression.

The Court concluded that the content of variable data inserted by a program into a computer’s RAM during execution does not fall within the protection conferred by the Directive, provided that such content does not enable the reproduction or subsequent creation of the program. Consequently, modifying these variables without altering the source or object code does not constitute an infringement of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights under Article 4(1)(b).

Implications of the decision

This judgment delineates the boundaries of copyright protection for computer programs within the EU, clarifying that:

  • Variable Data vs. Source Code: Alterations to variable data during program execution, which do not impact the source or object code, are outside the scope of protection under Directive 2009/24/EC.
  • Functional Modifications: Software that interacts with existing programs by modifying runtime variables, without altering the program’s code, does not infringe upon the exclusive rights of the original program’s copyright holder.

This decision has significant ramifications for developers of ancillary software, such as game enhancement tools or customization applications, affirming that certain modifications at the execution level are permissible under EU copyright law.

Conclusion

The CJEU’s ruling in Case C-159/23 provides critical guidance on the interpretation of copyright protection for computer programs, particularly concerning the distinction between protected forms of expression and permissible modifications during program execution. This clarification is essential for both software developers and rights holders in understanding the legal parameters of program modification and the scope of intellectual property rights within the European Union.

At the Dreyfus firm, we bring expertise across all areas of intellectual property, including copyright law, to provide you with the highest level of guidance and protection for your rights and innovations.

The Dreyfus firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property specialists.

Follow us on social media!

Read More

The Evolution of UDRP Procedures: What You Need to Know in 2025

Written by Dreyfus29/01/2025

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), established in 1999, has been a cornerstone in addressing cybersquatting and domain name disputes . As we move into 2025, it is imperative for trademark owners, legal professionals, and businesses to understand the recent advancements and the anticipated changes shaping this critical mechanism. Awareness of these developments is essential to safeguard intellectual property in an increasingly complex digital environment.

Overview of the UDRP

The UDRP provides a streamlined, cost-effective alternative to litigation for resolving disputes over domain names registered in bad faith. This non-judicial policy is administered by renowned arbitration providers, including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and has resolved over 76,000 cases concerning more than 143,000 domain names as of 2023. In 2023 alone, WIPO received a record-breaking 5,616 UDRP complaints, reflecting a 7% increase compared to 2022. Its enduring success lies in its efficiency, typically achieving resolution within 60 days, and its global applicability across multiple top-level domains (TLDs).

Key Developments in UDRP Procedures

Increased Caseload and Efficiency

The number of UDRP cases has surged in recent years, demonstrating the policy’s effectiveness in tackling domain-related infringements. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of cases handled by WIPO increased by 36%, highlighting the growing reliance of trademark owners on this mechanism. Despite this rising caseload, the system continues to resolve disputes promptly, maintaining its hallmark efficiency

Adaptation to New gTLDs

The expansion of the domain name system, particularly with the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), has presented challenges and opportunities for the UDRP. The policy has proven adaptable, extending its applicability to these new gTLDs and ensuring that trademark owners can address infringements across a broader spectrum of domain names. In 2023, nearly 30% of UDRP complaints concerned domains registered under new gTLDs such as .xyz, .online, and .shop.

Integration of Electronic Procedures

In response to the digital transformation of legal processes, the UDRP has integrated electronic procedures to enhance efficiency and accessibility. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has implemented fully electronic procedures for UDRP cases, eliminating the need for paper filings and streamlining the dispute resolution process. This modernization ensures that the UDRP remains relevant in a fast-evolving technological era.

Proposed Reforms and Future Perspectives

Calls for Financial Penalties

Since 2015, there have been discussions about introducing financial penalties for respondents found guilty of cybersquatting under the UDRP. Proponents argue that such measures would serve as a stronger deterrent against bad-faith registrations. However, critics caution that imposing financial penalties could complicate the UDRP’s streamlined process and potentially deter legitimate claims.

Addressing Privacy Regulations

The implementation of privacy regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, has impacted the availability of domain registrant information. This has posed challenges for complainants in identifying and pursuing cases against infringing domain name holders. The UDRP is exploring mechanisms to balance the need for transparency in dispute resolution with compliance to privacy laws.

Conclusion

The UDRP continues to play a pivotal role in protecting intellectual property rights in the digital realm. Its adaptability to increasing caseloads, new gTLDs, and digital processes has cemented its position as an indispensable tool for combating cybersquatting. Nevertheless, ongoing discussions about reforms, including financial penalties and privacy compliance, highlight the dynamic nature of the UDRP and its capacity for evolution.

As we advance into 2025, staying informed about these changes is essential for stakeholders to effectively navigate domain disputes.

Contact Dreyfus Law Firm today to discuss your UDRP dispute resolution needs. With recognized expertise in domain name protection, we assist you at every stage of the process, from identifying infringements to resolving disputes. Thanks to our strategic approach and international network, we help you secure and defend your digital identity against cybersquatting attempts.

Dreyfus Law Firm partners with a global network of intellectual property law specialists.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More
Contact
Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin

© 2024 Dreyfus – Created by Agence Peach