Latest developments in generative AI and copyright: An in-depth analysis

Written by Dreyfus01/04/2025

The rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the creation and use of content, raising complex questions regarding copyright. This article provides a comprehensive overview of recent legal actions and legislative initiatives related to generative AI and copyright, highlighting the challenges and opportunities that emerge in this dynamic landscape.

Recent legal actions in the United States

In the United States, several lawsuits have been initiated concerning the use of copyrighted works in training generative AI models.

Case of Kadrey v. Meta

In this class action lawsuit, authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden allege that Meta Platforms Inc. infringed their copyrights by using their books to train its AI model, LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI). On November 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed several claims, including those for direct copyright infringement based on the derivative work theory and vicarious copyright infringement. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs’ claims related to the removal of copyright management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to proceed, acknowledging that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing. Subsequently, on March 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on direct copyright infringement, arguing that Meta cannot rely on a fair use defense concerning its alleged acquisition of “millions of pirated works” used to train its model.

Legal proceedings against OpenAI and Microsoft

In December 2023, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their AI models were trained using the newspaper’s articles without authorization, constituting copyright infringement. This case underscores the growing tensions between content creators and AI developers regarding the use of protected works in AI training. As of March 2025, a federal judge has allowed the lawsuit to proceed, dismissing some claims but permitting the core allegations of copyright infringement to move forward.

International legal developments

Legal actions related to generative AI and copyright are also increasing internationally.

Legal action in France against Meta

In France, three associations representing authors and publishers—the Syndicat National de l’Édition (SNE), the Société des Gens de Lettres (SGDL), and the Syndicat National des Auteurs et des Compositeurs (SNAC)—have initiated proceedings against Meta. They allege that Meta used copyrighted works without authorization to train its generative AI model. This is the first action of its kind in France, demanding copyright enforcement and the complete removal of data repositories used for AI training.

Legislative and regulatory initiatives

In response to these challenges, several legislative and regulatory initiatives have been proposed or implemented.

United States: Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

In April 2024, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act. This bill requires companies to disclose the copyrighted works used to train their generative AI systems by submitting a notice to the Register of Copyrights at least 30 days before the public release of a new or updated AI model. Penalties for non-compliance start at $5,000, with no maximum penalty specified.

European Union: AI Act

In the European Union, the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which was formally adopted on 13 March 2024, includes specific provisions designed to address intellectual property concerns related to generative AI.

Among its key requirements, the AI Act mandates that developers of general-purpose AI models, including generative AI systems, must provide detailed documentation on the content used for training, including information on whether the datasets contain copyright-protected material. This transparency obligation is aimed at ensuring that rights holders are aware of how their works may have been used.

Additionally, the Act introduces a duty to clearly label AI-generated content, enabling consumers and rightsholders to identify content created without direct human authorship.

These measures reflect the EU’s broader objective to strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and safeguarding intellectual property rights, especially as tensions grow between creators and developers of large-scale AI systems.

Conclusion

The intersection of generative AI and copyright law is a rapidly evolving field, marked by significant legal actions and legislative efforts worldwide. As AI technology continues to advance, it is imperative for stakeholders—including developers, content creators, and legal professionals—to stay informed and engaged with these developments to navigate the complex landscape effectively.

LinkedIn

Instagram

FAQ

What is generative AI?

Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence systems capable of creating content, such as text, images, or music, based on patterns learned from existing data.

Why is generative AI raising copyright concerns?

Generative AI models are often trained on large datasets that include copyrighted works, leading to concerns about unauthorized use and potential infringement.

What is the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act?

It is a proposed U.S. legislation requiring companies to disclose the copyrighted materials used to train their generative AI systems, aiming to increase transparency and protect creators' rights.

The CJUE Neutralizes the Reciprocity Rule of Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention for Works Originating from a Non-EEE Country

Written by Dreyfus25/03/2025

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) now effectively neutralizes the reciprocity rule found in Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention for works originating from a third country outside the European Economic Area (EEE). This shift has immediate consequences for stakeholders in the fields of design and copyright, illustrating the expanding scope of EU copyright harmonization. Below, we outline the core aspects of this change, moving from the overarching principle to its practical implications in a structured manner.

Context and Legal Foundations

The Berne Convention and EU Law
We observe that the Berne Convention has historically allowed signatory states to apply a principle of reciprocity to artistic and applied works from countries that did not offer equivalent protection. Recently, however, the CJUE clarified that the harmonization achieved by European directives (notably Directive 2001/29/EC) supersedes individual Member States’ prerogative to rely on reciprocity in areas that the EU has fully regulated. This decision stems from the principle that only the EU legislator may introduce exceptions or limitations once an aspect of copyright law has been harmonized across Member States.
Official Sources and Regulatory References
According to the CJUE’s interpretation, Member States must refrain from applying reciprocity where EU law intends for equal treatment, irrespective of an author’s nationality or a work’s country of origin.

Key CJUE Decision of 24 October 2024

CJUE, 1re ch., 24 Oct. 2024, Aff. C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV c/ Vitra Collections AG
In its landmark ruling of 24 October 2024, the CJUE held that Member States cannot apply material reciprocity under Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention to refuse or limit copyright protection for works of applied art originating in a non-EEE country. By doing so, the Court confirmed that only the EU legislator may decide on any limitation to economic rights granted under harmonized directives. The decision underscores the principle that national rules tied to the country of origin become inoperative where the EU has established overarching copyright norms.

Impact on Protection for Artistic and Applied Works

Extended Copyright for Third-Country Creations
By neutralizing the reciprocity rule, the CJUE effectively grants works originating from countries outside the EEE a level of protection in line with EU standards, provided they meet the originality and other formal criteria under EU law. This shift primarily benefits foreign creators of designs, industrial models, and artworks who previously faced potential restrictions if their home jurisdictions did not offer reciprocal protection.
Reinforced Harmonization and Legal Certainty
From a business and innovation standpoint, uniform copyright protection across the EU promotes legal certainty. Designers, manufacturers, and distributors now operate under clearer guidelines, facilitating smoother market entry and fewer obstacles linked to a work’s geographic origin.

Practical Consequences for Rights Holders

Easier Enforcement: Foreign authors or rights holders can assert their copyrights uniformly throughout the EU, without having to prove reciprocal treatment in their home country.
Encouraged Cross-Border Collaboration: Companies in the EEE may confidently license or acquire designs from third countries, knowing that these rights enjoy robust backing under EU directives.
Reassessment of Agreements: Existing contracts or licenses that assumed limited rights based on reciprocity might need a thorough legal review to align with the CJUE’s position.

Recommended Next Steps & Best Practices

Monitor Legislative Updates: Future EU legislative initiatives may further define or refine limitations.
Review IP Portfolios: Rights holders should ensure that new or ongoing filings for design or copyright registration reflect this updated landscape.
Consult Specialized Counsel: Given the complexity of international IP rights, professional guidance is indispensable to navigate cross-border transactions effectively.

The CJUE takes on profound significance for EU copyright enforcement. We advise rights holders, designers, and businesses to adapt proactively to this refined legal environment.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter: Stay informed about important rulings and policy shifts.
Follow Us on social media: Engage with our professional community for timely updates and best practices.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we stand ready to provide comprehensive legal strategies tailored to each client’s needs. Our services include advising on copyright registration and enforcement, brand and design protection, domain name portfolio management, licensing and transfer negotiations, anti-counterfeiting initiatives, and litigation support across multiple jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys, ensuring comprehensive assistance for businesses worldwide.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn

Instagram

FAQ

1. Does this ruling apply to all creative works?

Yes. It covers any original work under EU copyright law, including works of applied art and design.

2. What if my home country does not protect such works at all?

Under the CJUE’s new interpretation, EU protection still applies if the work meets EU originality standards.

3. Will this affect the duration of protection?

The CJUE’s decision concerns the scope of protection, not duration. However, the EU already has specific rules on duration that Member States must respect.

The Protection of AI-Generated Inventions Under Patent Law

Written by Dreyfus24/03/2025

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to significant advancements in various fields, including technological innovation. AI systems are now capable of autonomously generating inventions without direct human intervention. This new reality raises a fundamental question in patent law: Can an invention generated by an AI be protected by a patent?

This complex issue is at the center of concerns for intellectual property offices and legislators worldwide, who are debating how patent law should adapt to this new form of innovation.

Patent eligibility of AI-Generated inventions

Patentability criteria

Pursuant to the article L611-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code, to be eligible for a patent, an invention must meet three fundamental criteria:

Novelty: The invention must not have been disclosed to the public before the patent application was filed.
Inventive step: The invention must not be an obvious improvement for a person skilled in the art.
Industrial application: The invention must be capable of being used in industry.

When an AI generates an invention, assessing these criteria becomes more complex. The originality of the invention largely depends on the training data and algorithms used by the AI. It then becomes difficult to determine whether the invention is truly novel or merely a reformulation of existing information.

Furthermore, the inventive step requires that an invention is not an obvious outcome of prior knowledge. However, if an AI is programmed to analyze a vast corpus of technical data and propose optimized solutions, can its invention be considered as involving sufficient creative effort?

Challenges in recognizing AI as an inventor

One of the major legal obstacles concerns the attribution of inventorship. Today, most legal frameworks require the inventor to be a natural person.

The European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have rejected patent applications where an AI was designated as the inventor.

For example, in January 2020, the EPO rejected two European patent applications in which the designated inventor was an artificial intelligence system named DABUS. This decision was based on the European Patent Convention (EPC), which states that only a human being can be recognized as an inventor.

The applicant, creator of DABUS, argued that this AI, based on artificial neural networks, had autonomously conceived the inventions. However, the EPO concluded that, under the EPC, the rights attached to inventorship, such as the right to be mentioned as an inventor or to assign a patent, can only be granted to natural or legal persons. AI systems, lacking legal personality, cannot be recognized as inventors.

This case highlights the legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property.

These decisions are motivated by the fact that only humans can be legally recognized as inventors, particularly due to legal rights and liability considerations.

This stance raises a dilemma: When human intervention is minimal or nonexistent in the invention process, who should be credited as the inventor?

Some experts suggest attributing inventorship to the AI user or the entity that controls the AI, but this approach remains highly debated.

Legislative developments

International Perspectives

Given the uncertainties surrounding AI and patentability, several initiatives are underway worldwide:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has launched consultations on the impact of AI in patent law and is considering potential reforms to harmonize approaches among different countries.
The United States has seen the emergence of several legislative proposals aimed at clarifying the legal status of AI-generated inventions, although no major reform has been adopted so far.

In the United States, in October 2023, the White House issued an executive order aimed at ensuring the safe and reliable development of artificial intelligence (AI). In response, the USPTO published, in February 2024, guidelines on the patentability of AI-assisted inventions.

These guidelines specify that:

AI may contribute to an invention, but
Only a human who has made a significant contribution to each claim can be legally recognized as an inventor.

This position aligns with previous court decisions affirming that the inventor must be a natural person. Thus, patent applications involving AI must explicitly name individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the invention, excluding the possibility of designating the AI itself as the inventor.

This regulatory development highlights the importance of clarifying the respective roles of humans and AI systems in the innovation process, to ensure adequate legal protection for inventions in the United States.

Recent changes in patent law

Some countries have already introduced legislative changes:

South Africa became the first country to grant a patent to an AI-generated invention, although this remains an isolated case.
Australia also examined the issue, and in a decision on July 30, 2021, the Federal Court admitted this possibility (Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879).

These developments show that the recognition of AI-generated inventions is an evolving topic, and regulators will likely need to clarify their stance to address the challenges posed by AI and intellectual property.

Practical Considerations for Innovators

Strategies for Protecting AI-Generated Inventions

Businesses and innovators must anticipate legal challenges by adopting suitable strategies:

Ensure a human role in the invention process: A researcher or engineer should be sufficiently involved to be designated as the inventor.
Document every stage of creation: Keeping detailed records of how the AI operates and its role in the invention is essential.
Explore alternatives to patent protection: When patentability is uncertain, other forms of protection, such as trade secrets, may be considered.

Implications for Intellectual Property management

Companies must adapt their patent management strategies to the challenges posed by AI. It is advisable to:

Update contracts to clearly define ownership of AI-generated inventions.
Monitor legislative developments to anticipate possible regulatory changes.

Conclusion

The emergence of AI in innovation raises profound legal and ethical questions. Current patent law is not fully adapted to this new reality. Legislators and intellectual property offices must therefore adapt to address the challenges posed by autonomous AI-generated inventions.

Until regulatory clarifications are made, innovators must adopt proactive strategies to effectively protect their inventions and safeguard their intellectual property rights.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, patent 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

Revisions to China’s Three-Year Non-Use Trademark Revocation Procedure: What You Need to Know

Written by Dreyfus19/03/2025

In the realm of intellectual property law, China’s trademark regulations, as outlined in Article 49 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, mandate that registered trademarks be subject to cancellation if not used within a continuous three-year period. This policy aims to prevent the hoarding of trademarks and ensure that only actively utilized marks remain protected. Recent developments indicate potential changes to this revocation procedure, signaling a significant shift in China’s trademark enforcement landscape.

Current Framework of China’s Non-Use Trademark Revocation

Under the existing legal framework, a registered trademark in China may be vulnerable to cancellation if it has not been used for three consecutive years, in accordance with Article 49 of the Trademark Law. The revocation process is typically initiated through a formal request by a third party, often a competitor or interested entity, who petitions the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to cancel the inactive trademark. The trademark holder is then required to provide evidence of genuine use within the specified period to maintain their rights.

Proposed Amendments to the Revocation Procedure

Recent discussions within China’s legislative bodies suggest forthcoming amendments to the non-use revocation procedure. While specific details remain under deliberation, the proposed changes may include:

Extension of the Non-Use Period: Consideration of lengthening the current three-year period to a longer duration, providing trademark owners with more flexibility before facing potential cancellation.
Modification of Evidence Requirements: Reevaluation of the types and standards of evidence required to demonstrate genuine use, potentially streamlining the process for trademark holders.
Introduction of Grace Periods: Implementation of grace periods or exceptions for certain industries or circumstances, acknowledging that some sectors may require longer lead times to commence trademark use.

Implications for Trademark Holders

These proposed changes carry significant implications for both domestic and international trademark holders operating in China:

Strategic Planning: Trademark owners may need to reassess their portfolio strategies, considering the potential for extended non-use periods and adjusted evidence requirements.
Compliance and Monitoring: Enhanced vigilance in monitoring trademark use and maintaining comprehensive records will be essential to comply with any new regulations.
Legal Consultation: Engaging with legal experts specializing in Chinese trademark law will be crucial to navigate the evolving legal landscape and ensure continued protection of intellectual property rights.

Conclusion

As China moves towards amending its three-year non-use trademark revocation procedure, trademark holders must stay informed and proactive. Adapting to these changes will be vital in safeguarding intellectual property assets within China’s dynamic market.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists clients at all stages of trademark protection and management in China and internationally. Our services include trademark portfolio monitoring and management, preparation and submission of evidence of use, and defense in case of challenges. We also assist clients in administrative procedures before the CNIPA and provide tailored strategies to adapt to regulatory changes in the Chinese market. With our in-depth intellectual property expertise and our global network of specialized attorneys, we ensure comprehensive and customized support to secure and enhance your intangible assets.

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

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn

Instagram

FAQ

1. What is the current non-use period for trademark revocation in China?

Currently, a registered trademark in China can be canceled if it has not been used for three consecutive years as stipulated in Article 49 of the Trademark Law.

2. What constitutes 'genuine use' of a trademark in China?

Genuine use refers to the actual commercial use of the trademark in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered.

3. How can a trademark holder prove genuine use?

Evidence such as sales invoices, advertising materials, and product packaging displaying the trademark can be submitted to demonstrate genuine use.

Proof of Use in the United States: A Cornerstone for Trademark Protection

Written by Dreyfus18/03/2025

In the United States, the concept of “proof of use” is fundamental to the acquisition and maintenance of trademark rights. Unlike jurisdictions that recognize rights based on registration alone, U.S. trademark law requires actual use of the mark in commerce to establish and uphold these rights. This article delves into the critical role of proof of use in protecting trademarks within the U.S. legal framework.

Understanding Proof of Use

Proof of use refers to tangible evidence demonstrating that a trademark is actively used in commerce concerning the goods or services for which it is registered. This requirement ensures that the trademark serves its primary function: identifying the source of goods or services and distinguishing them from others in the marketplace.

Legal Requirements for Maintaining Trademark Registration

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) mandates specific filings to confirm ongoing use of a trademark:

Section 8 Declaration: Between the 5th and 6th year after registration, trademark owners must file a Section 8 Declaration, attesting to the continuous use of the mark in commerce. This filing must include:
- A statement of use.
- A specimen (example) showing the mark’s current use.
- The required filing fee.
Section 9 Renewal Application: Every ten years, a combined Section 8 Declaration and Section 9 Renewal Application are required to maintain the registration. Failure to submit these documents can result in the cancellation of the trademark registration.

Acceptable Forms of Proof

The USPTO provides guidelines on acceptable specimens to substantiate the use of a trademark:

For Goods:
- Labels or Tags: Photographs of labels or tags affixed to the products bearing the trademark.
- Product Packaging: Images showing the mark displayed on the packaging.
- Online Point-of-Sale Displays: Screenshots of e-commerce webpages where the product, bearing the mark, is available for purchase, including the URL and date of capture.
For Services:
- Advertising Materials: Brochures, flyers, or advertisements featuring the trademark in connection with the offered services.
- Website Pages: Screenshots of webpages describing the services rendered under the mark, with visible URL and date.

It’s imperative that the specimen clearly associates the trademark with the specific goods or services listed in the registration.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Neglecting to provide adequate proof of use can lead to severe repercussions:

Cancellation of Registration: The USPTO may cancel the trademark registration if the owner fails to submit the required declarations and specimens within the stipulated timeframes.
Legal Vulnerability: Without a valid registration, enforcing trademark rights against infringers becomes significantly more challenging, potentially leading to loss of brand exclusivity.

Best Practices for Trademark Holders

To ensure compliance and safeguard trademark rights, consider the following practices:

Maintain Detailed Records: Keep comprehensive documentation of how and where the trademark is used in commerce, including dated photographs, sales records, and marketing materials.
Monitor Deadlines: Utilize docketing systems or professional services to track and remind of critical filing deadlines to prevent inadvertent lapses.
Consult Professionals: Engage with intellectual property attorneys to navigate the complexities of trademark law and ensure that all proof of use submissions meet USPTO standards.

Conclusion

In the U.S., the adage “use it or lose it” aptly encapsulates the essence of trademark protection. Active and continuous use of a trademark, coupled with diligent adherence to legal requirements for proof of use, is indispensable for maintaining exclusive rights and reaping the benefits of brand recognition. By understanding and fulfilling these obligations, trademark owners can fortify their positions in the marketplace and avert potential legal pitfalls.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in intellectual property law, offering expert guidance on trademark registration and maintenance. Our global network of attorneys ensures comprehensive support for your brand protection needs. We offer specialized expertise in trademark law, ensuring that our clients comply with USPTO proof of use requirements and maintain their trademark rights in the United States. With decades of experience in intellectual property law, our firm provides tailored legal strategies for businesses navigating trademark protection challenges in the U.S. and abroad.

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

LinkedIn

Instagram

FAQ

1. What constitutes acceptable proof of use for goods?

Acceptable proof includes labels, tags, product packaging, or online sales pages displaying the trademark directly on the product or its packaging.

2. Is advertising material sufficient proof of use for services?

Yes, for services, advertising materials such as brochures or website pages that clearly associate the trademark with the offered services are acceptable.

3. What happens if I miss the filing deadline for the Section 8 Declaration?

Missing the deadline can result in the cancellation of your trademark registration. However, the USPTO provides a six-month grace period with an additional fee.

4. Can I submit a mock-up as proof of use?

No, the USPTO requires actual evidence of the mark's use in commerce; mock-ups or prototypes are not acceptable.

5. How often must I renew my trademark registration?

After the initial Section 8 Declaration between the 5th and 6th year, renewals are required every ten years, accompanied by a combined Section

Decision of the Paris Judicial Court on the Protection of the Iconic Kelly and Birkin Bags – February 7, 2025

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2025

On February 7, 2025, the Paris Judicial Court issued a notable decision (Case No. RG 22/09210) in the dispute between Hermès International and Hermès Sellier against Blao&Co. This case raises essential questions regarding the protection of design works under French copyright law and trademark infringement. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the ruling, highlighting its implications for designers and fashion companies.

Case Background

Hermès International and Hermès Sellier, renowned for their iconic Kelly and Birkin bags, discovered that Blao&Co had been selling handbags under the brand name “NDG” since 2021. These products, particularly the “Paisley Jane” model, were marketed through Blao&Co’s website, social media platforms, and as NFTs on OpenSea.

Claiming that these handbags reproduced the distinctive features of their protected models, Hermès sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to Blao&Co in March and April 2022, demanding the cessation of the infringing bags’ sale, as well as the associated NFTs. After receiving no satisfactory response, Hermès filed a lawsuit in July 2022 for copyright and trademark infringement.

Arguments of the Parties

Hermès’ Position

Hermès argued that Blao&Co’s “Paisley Jane” bags were an unauthorized reproduction of their Kelly and Birkin models, which are protected under copyright due to their originality. Additionally, Hermès claimed that Blao&Co unlawfully used their registered three-dimensional trademark, particularly the signature lock closure featured on their bags.

Blao&Co’s Defense

Blao&Co contested the originality of the Kelly and Birkin bags, arguing that their features were common to many handbags or dictated by technical constraints. The company also denied trademark infringement, asserting that the elements used were generic and did not infringe on Hermès’ rights.

Legal Analysis of the Court

Originality of the Kelly and Birkin Bags

The court first examined the originality of the Kelly and Birkin bags, an essential condition for copyright protection. It was established that the Kelly bag has a trapezoidal shape with side gussets, a cut-out flap, a specific closing system, a special handle, four basic studs and a removable shoulder strap. The Birkin bag, on the other hand, has a slightly rectangular shape, a flap with a three-notch cut-out, a specific closing system, two special handles, specific gussets and four basic studs. The court concluded that these features were the result of free and creative choices, giving the bags a distinctive and recognizable appearance, thus satisfying the criterion of originality required for copyright protection.

Trademark infringement

Concerning trademark infringement, the court noted that Hermès has held a three-dimensional trademark registered since 2003, covering in particular the distinctive clasp of its bags. Blao&Co’s “Paisley Jane” bags were found to reproduce this clasp in an identical or similar manner, creating a risk of confusion in the mind of the public. The court therefore concluded that Blao&Co had infringed the trademark.

Implications of the Decision

For Fashion Designers

This ruling reaffirms the importance of originality in the protection of design works under copyright law. Fashion designers are encouraged to:

Develop distinctive and innovative designs to ensure effective legal protection against unauthorized copies.
Consider registering their designs as trademarks or design rights for enhanced protection.

For Businesses

Businesses must exercise caution to ensure that their products do not infringe existing intellectual property rights. This case underscores the importance of:

Conducting thorough legal research before launching new products.
Consulting intellectual property attorneys to assess potential risks and avoid costly legal disputes.

Conclusion

The Paris Judicial Court’s decision of February 7, 2025, establishes a significant precedent in fashion design and trademark protection. It recognizes the originality of fashion creations as works protected under copyright law and reaffirms the enforcement of three-dimensional trademarks against infringement.

Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm: Your Intellectual Property Partner

The Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm assists designers, businesses, and industry professionals in defending their intellectual property rights. Specializing in trademarks, patents, and design law, our expert legal team helps protect, value, and defend your creations against infringement risks and legal disputes.

Contact us for a personalized consultation and safeguard your designs!

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

FAQ

1. What is originality in copyright law?

Originality is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection. It means that the work reflects the author's free and creative choices, giving it a unique and recognizable appearance.

2. Can handbags be protected by copyright?

Yes, provided they exhibit originality. The Paris Judicial Court confirmed that Hermès' Kelly and Birkin bags met this requirement, as their distinctive features resulted from creative choices.

3. What is the difference between a three-dimensional trademark and a design right?

A three-dimensional trademark protects a product’s distinctive shape as a commercial identifier. In contrast, a design right protects only the aesthetic appearance of a product for a limited duration.

4. How can companies avoid trademark or copyright infringement in fashion?

Companies should: • Conduct extensive IP research before launching new products. • Consult an intellectual property lawyer to evaluate potential risks.

5. What are the penalties for trademark or copyright infringement?

Penalties may include: • Product sales bans • Stock destruction • Monetary damages • Fines • In severe cases, criminal charges

Artificial Intelligence as a Legal Assistant

Written by Dreyfus10/03/2025

In the rapidly evolving landscape of legal services, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force, particularly in the realm of intellectual property (IP) law.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the legal sector signifies a paradigm shift, offering tools that augment the capabilities of legal professionals. In the field of intellectual property, where precision and efficiency are paramount, AI serves as a catalyst for innovation and improved client service.

I – The role of AI in legal assistance

Automation of repetitive tasks

AI excels in automating routine tasks that traditionally consume significant time and resources. Document review, contract analysis, and due diligence are now expedited through AI-driven platforms, allowing legal practitioners to focus on more complex and strategic activities. For instance, AI can swiftly analyze vast amounts of legal documents to identify relevant information, thereby reducing the time spent on manual reviews.

Predictive analytics in legal decision-making

Beyond automation, AI offers predictive analytics capabilities that assist in forecasting legal outcomes. By analyzing historical case data, AI models can predict the likelihood of success in litigation, enabling lawyers to devise informed strategies. This predictive power is particularly beneficial in intellectual property disputes, where understanding potential case trajectories can inform negotiation and litigation approaches.

II – Impact on intellectual property consultancy

Enhancing efficiency and accuracy

In the realm of intellectual property consultancy, AI enhances both efficiency and accuracy. AI-powered tools can conduct comprehensive prior art searches, ensuring that patent applications are both novel and non-infringing. Additionally, AI aids in monitoring potential IP infringements by scanning global databases and marketplaces, providing timely alerts to rights holders. This proactive approach enables IP consultants to offer clients robust protection strategies.

Challenges and ethical considerations

While AI offers numerous benefits, its integration into legal services presents challenges and ethical considerations. Concerns regarding data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of client trust must be addressed. Legal professionals are tasked with ensuring that AI applications comply with existing regulations and uphold the profession’s ethical standards. This includes maintaining transparency in AI-driven analyses and safeguarding sensitive client information.

III – Recent governmental initiatives

National AI Strategies

Governments worldwide recognize the transformative potential of AI and are formulating strategies to harness its benefits responsibly. For example, the French government has launched a national AI strategy aimed at fostering innovation while ensuring ethical deployment across sectors, including the legal domain. Indeed, an information report titled “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Professions” was adopted on December 18, 2024. This strategy encompasses investments in AI research, development of regulatory frameworks, and initiatives to upskill the workforce in AI competencies.

Regulatory frameworks and compliance

To navigate the complexities of AI integration, regulatory bodies are establishing frameworks that promote innovation without compromising ethical standards. These regulations address issues such as data protection, accountability in AI decision-making, and the prevention of discriminatory practices. Legal professionals must stay abreast of these developments to ensure compliance and to advise clients effectively on AI-related matters.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence stands as a pivotal ally in the evolution of legal services, particularly within intellectual property consultancy. Its capacity to automate tasks and provide predictive insights not only enhances operational efficiency but also elevates the quality of client counsel. As AI continues to mature, its symbiotic relationship with legal professionals will undoubtedly redefine the landscape of legal practice.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

We are committed to integrating cutting-edge AI technologies to deliver unparalleled intellectual property services and collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn

Instagram

FAQ

1 – How can AI be used in the legal field?

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that can be leveraged in the legal field to automate certain tasks, enhance data analysis, and optimize case management. The main applications include: • Automation of repetitive tasks: AI can generate contracts, analyze clauses, and verify document compliance. • Legal research: AI-powered search engines accelerate the identification of case law precedents and applicable legal texts. • Predictive analysis: Some AI systems can assess the likelihood of success in legal cases based on past court decisions. • Risk management and compliance: AI algorithms detect anomalies in financial documents or contracts, helping companies comply with regulations.

2 – What is the relationship between law and artificial intelligence?

The relationship between law and AI is twofold: • AI applied to law: AI optimizes the work of legal professionals by automating complex tasks, facilitating access to legal information, and improving decision-making. • The regulation of AI: The rise of artificial intelligence presents legal challenges concerning data protection, algorithmic liability, ethics, and regulatory frameworks. Legislators must establish legal safeguards to prevent bias, ensure transparency, and protect individual rights.

3 – Can AI replace lawyers?

AI cannot replace lawyers, but it can significantly enhance their work by providing decision-support tools and automating time-consuming tasks. Lawyers bring indispensable expertise in legal interpretation, litigation strategy, and negotiation. AI lacks the judgment, creativity, and empathy required to defend a client in complex situations. It remains a highly effective assistant but not a substitute for legal professionals.

4 – How do consulting firms use AI?

Intellectual property and legal consulting firms use AI in several ways: • Brand monitoring and protection: AI helps detect fraudulent use of trademarks on the internet, social media, and e-commerce platforms. • Management and analysis of trademark and patent portfolios: AI algorithms can identify protection opportunities, detect potential conflicts, and propose tailored strategies. • Regulatory compliance audits: AI simplifies contract and legal text analysis to ensure compliance with current regulations. • Automation of document drafting: AI-powered tools generate contracts, legal clauses, and personalized analyses based on clients' needs. In summary, AI does not replace legal expertise but serves as an efficiency and precision tool that transforms legal practice and optimizes risk management.

AI and Data privacy

Written by Dreyfus05/03/2025

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and data privacy law has introduced complex challenges and opportunities for businesses and regulators alike. The exponential growth of AI-powered systems, particularly those reliant on personal data, necessitates a balanced approach to innovation and compliance. This article explores how the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) addresses the complex legal issues raised by AI technologies, including accountability, data minimization, and lawful bases for processing, while highlighting recent case law and enforcement actions.

I – The legal foundations: AI and GDPR compliance

A – AI’s dependency on personal data

AI systems often require vast amounts of personal data to function effectively. From training large language models to deploying recommendation engines, personal data is indispensable. However, the GDPR imposes strict conditions on such processing, challenging AI developers to balance utility and privacy.

Key Issues Addressed by the GDPR:

Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency (Art. 5 GDPR) : AI systems must be transparent in their data handling practices, ensuring individuals understand how their data is used.
Purpose limitation (Art. 5 GDPR) : AI developers must define specific purposes for data processing and refrain from repurposing data without further legal justification.
Data minimization (Art. 5 GDPR) : The principle mandates that only data necessary for the intended purpose is processed.

B – Lawful bases for AI data processing

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has clarified that legitimate interest may justify processing personal data in AI development, provided it passes a three-part test:

Identification of the legitimate interest.
Demonstration of necessity for processing.
Balancing this interest against individuals’ rights.

II – Key challenges in applying GDPR to AI

Anonymization and Pseudonymization : The distinction between anonymized and pseudonymized data is critical in determining GDPR applicability. AI models trained on pseudonymized data remain subject to GDPR, whereas truly anonymized data falls outside its scope.
Transparency in complex systems : AI systems, particularly deep learning models, are often criticized as “black boxes,” making it difficult to explain how decisions are made. The GDPR’s right to explanation (recital 71) adds pressure on AI developers to enhance transparency.
Cross-Border data transfers : AI systems relying on global data sources face scrutiny under GDPR’s strict data transfer rules. The recent Schrems II decision invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, compelling organizations to adopt alternative safeguards for lawful data transfers.

III – Enforcement and precedent: Lessons from case law

A – The OpenAI Case: Italy’s landmark fine

In December 2024, the Italian Data Protection Authority fined OpenAI €15 million for GDPR violations, including a lack of transparency, failure to verify user age, and insufficient safeguards for sensitive data. This case underscores the importance of robust compliance strategies in AI deployment.

B – Meta platforms and data security breaches

The Irish Data Protection Commission’s €251 million fine against Meta highlighted the consequences of inadequate data breach notifications and poor system design.

C – The European Commission’s Illegal Data Transfers

A 2025 ruling against the European Commission revealed unlawful data transfers to the US, emphasizing accountability even for public bodies.

IV – Practical recommendations for AI developers and businesses

Implement privacy by design and default : integrating privacy safeguards during the AI system’s design phase ensures compliance with GDPR’s data protection by design principle ( 25 GDPR).
Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) : DPIAs are mandatory for high-risk AI systems processing personal data. These assessments help identify risks and mitigate potential non-compliance.
Strengthen transparency mechanisms : AI developers must provide clear, accessible privacy notices and explain automated decision-making processes, empowering users to exercise their rights effectively.
Monitor regulatory developments : As the EU progresses with the AI Act, businesses must adapt to evolving legal landscapes to avoid penalties and maintain consumer trust.

V – Future Outlook: navigating AI’s legal landscape

The interplay between AI innovation and data protection laws will intensify as technologies evolve. The EU AI Act, set to harmonize regulations across member states, aims to create a comprehensive framework that addresses both risks and benefits of AI systems. Businesses that proactively align their operations with GDPR principles will not only mitigate legal risks but also gain a competitive edge in a privacy-conscious market.

Conclusion : Striking a balance

The relationship between AI and personal data protection exemplifies the tension between innovation and regulatory compliance. By embracing GDPR principles, businesses can harness AI’s transformative potential while respecting individual rights. This dual focus on efficiency and accountability will define the future of AI in an increasingly regulated world.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, our recognized expertise in intellectual property and new technologies is at your service to guide you through the intricate challenges posed by artificial intelligence and data protection.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys.

Join us on social media!

LinkedIn

Instagram

FAQ

1 – What is Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a set of technologies that enable machines to mimic certain human cognitive abilities, such as learning, reasoning, and decision-making. AI relies on advanced algorithms, including machine learning and deep learning, to analyze data and perform complex tasks without human intervention.

2 – What is the link between Artificial Intelligence and personal data?

AI relies on processing large amounts of data, including personal data such as names, addresses, online behavior, and user preferences. These data help machine learning algorithms improve their accuracy and provide personalized services. However, their use raises legal and ethical concerns, particularly regarding compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the security of sensitive information.

3 – What are the six principles of data protection?

The GDPR, which regulates the collection and processing of personal data in the European Union, is based on six fundamental principles: 1. Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency – Data must be processed lawfully, transparently, and in a way that is understandable to users. 2. Purpose limitation – Data must be collected for specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes. 3. Data minimization – Only data that is strictly necessary for processing should be collected. 4. Accuracy – Data must be kept up to date and corrected in case of errors. 5. Storage limitation – Data should not be retained longer than necessary. 6. Integrity and confidentiality – Data must be protected against unauthorized access, loss, or destruction.

4 – How does AI process data?

AI analyzes data in several stages: • Collection: Information is gathered from various sources (websites, sensors, databases, social networks, etc.). • Cleaning and structuring: Data is filtered, corrected, and organized to avoid errors and biases. • Analysis and modeling: Algorithms extract trends, detect anomalies, or make predictions. • Decision-making: AI generates recommendations, automates processes, or takes actions based on its analysis.

5 – What does AI do with your personal information?

Artificial Intelligence uses personal data to: • Personalize services (targeted advertising, content recommendations, virtual assistants). • Optimize algorithm performance (improving chatbots, voice recognition, and facial recognition). • Automate certain decisions (credit scoring, fraud detection, medical diagnosis). • Analyze user behavior to enhance products and services. However, the collection and processing of these data must comply with the GDPR and ensure the confidentiality and protection of users' sensitive information.

Art Market and Trademarks: Navigating Intellectual Property in the Art World

Written by Dreyfus04/03/2025

The art market is a sector where intellectual property plays a key role. While copyright remains the primary legal tool for protecting artistic creations, trademark law has become an essential strategy for safeguarding the names, logos, and reputations of artists, galleries, and auction houses.

According to the 2023 annual report of the INPI, 90,874 trademark applications were filed in France that year, highlighting the growing importance of brand protection, including in the art sector.

The challenge is twofold: ensuring the protection of artists’ and galleries’ identities against fraudulent use and guaranteeing the authenticity of artworks. The unauthorized use of well-known artists’ names to sell counterfeit goods is a recurrent issue that threatens the market’s value.

The Role of Trademarks in the Art Market

Trademarks play an essential role in the valorization of artists, galleries, and auction houses. They protect brand identity and market reputation, ensuring recognition and exclusivity.

Trademarks and Art Galleries’ Business Names

Art galleries must register their names and visual identities as trademarks with the INPI in France or the EUIPO for a European trademark. This registration prevents identity theft, commercial parasitism, and disputes over exploitation rights.

Prestigious galleries such as Gagosian Gallery and David Zwirner have established their names as trademarks to secure international recognition and prevent fraudulent use.

Artists’ Trademarks and Personal Branding

Many contemporary artists, including Jeff Koons, Banksy, and Damien Hirst, have registered their names as trademarks to control the commercialization of their works and derivative products, such as posters, miniature sculptures, and NFTs.

A critical legal question arises upon an artist’s death: Who owns the trademarked name, and who can exploit their image commercially? Some artist estates, such as Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s, have attempted to trademark their names to maintain control over posthumous exploitation.

Counterfeiting and Trademark Misuse

The art market faces a growing counterfeiting issue, affecting both artworks and branding elements, such as gallery logos or famous artist names.

Some online platforms and secondary markets exploit gallery and artist names without authorization, selling fake or unauthorized reproductions. Fraudulent NFTs have become a major concern, prompting artists to register their digital signatures and names as trademarks.

Copyright vs. Trademarks: Which Protection for Artworks?

While copyright law primarily governs the protection of artistic works, trademark law can apply in specific cases.

Copyright Protection for Artistic Works

Under French law, copyright automatically protects any original work from its creation, as stated in Article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code.

Artists hold moral rights (which are inalienable) and economic rights (which can be transferred). An art gallery must obtain explicit authorization to use or reproduce a copyrighted artwork.

Three-Dimensional Trademarks for Artistic Creations

Some artworks can be registered as three-dimensional trademarks if they are distinctive and not purely functional.

For example, Jeff Koons’ Balloon Dogs have been trademarked to prevent unauthorized reproductions.

Conflicts Between Copyright and Trademarks

Several conflicts arise between copyright and trademark law, including:

Can a gallery register an artwork as a trademark without the artist’s consent? No, unless the artist has transferred or licensed their rights. Unauthorized registration could be challenged as an infringement of the artist’s moral and economic rights.
Can a brand use an artist’s work without financial compensation? Generally no, unless it falls under an exception such as fair use or public domain. Unauthorized use could lead to legal action for copyright or trademark infringement.
When copyright expires (70 years after the artist’s death), can a trademark holder monopolize the work? A trademark cannot grant exclusive rights over a work in the public domain. However, a trademark on a name, logo, or distinctive element related to the artist may still provide some control over commercial use.

Notable Litigation and Case Law

Banksy vs. Full Colour Black, R 1246/2021-5 (2021)

Banksy registered several of his works as trademarks with the EUIPO. However, the company Full Colour Black contested these filings, arguing that Banksy was not using the trademarks for commercial purposes. The EUIPO annulled several of his trademarks, considering his filings an abuse of the system.

Jeff Koons has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly copying other artists’ works under the pretense of “transformation.” These cases highlight the tension between artistic appropriation and intellectual property rights.

Christo and Jeanne-Claude: Posthumous Protection

After the deaths of Christo and Jeanne-Claude, their heirs attempted to register their names and works as trademarks to control their commercial exploitation.

NFTs and Emerging Intellectual Property Issues

With the rise of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), trademark protection has taken on a new dimension.

Artists register their names and digital signatures as trademarks to prevent fake NFTs.
Galleries trademark certification systems to authenticate digital works and avoid identity fraud.
Platforms such as OpenSea and Rarible face legal challenges regarding unauthorized NFT sales.

Recommendations for Artists and Galleries

Register trademarks to protect artist names and gallery branding.
Ensure legal compliance before exhibiting or selling any artwork.
Monitor counterfeiting and unauthorized use of artist names and trademarks.
Utilize digital tools (blockchain, NFTs) to guarantee authenticity and traceability.

The intersection of art and trademarks presents both opportunities and challenges. While copyright remains the primary protection for artworks, trademark law is becoming increasingly strategic for securing artist and gallery identities.

With the rise of NFTs and digital art, intellectual property strategies must evolve to protect names and artworks from unauthorized exploitation.

Dreyfus Law Firm provides expertise in intellectual property protection for artists and galleries, working with a global network of specialized trademark attorneys.

FAQ

1. What is the relationship between art and trademarks?

Art and trademarks often intersect when artists incorporate branded elements into their works or when brands collaborate with artists to create unique products.

2. Can an artist use a trademarked logo in their artwork?

Using a trademarked logo without permission can lead to legal issues, as it may be considered trademark infringement.

3. What is fair use in the context of trademarks?

Fair use allows limited use of trademarked material without permission, typically for purposes like criticism or commentary. However, its application is limited in trademark law.

4. How can artists protect their intellectual property?

Artists can protect their work by registering copyrights, monitoring for unauthorized use, and taking legal action when necessary.

5. What are some examples of successful artist-brand collaborations?

Collaborations like those between Takashi Murakami and Louis Vuitton showcase successful partnerships that blend art and commerce.

Dreyfus and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Europe: An Analysis

Written by Dreyfus03/03/2025

Since its inception, Dreyfus has established itself as a leader in the management of intellectual property rights (IPR) on a European scale. Faced with the rise of global trade and the growing challenges posed by counterfeiting, the company provides invaluable support to organizations of all sizes to protect and enhance their intangible assets. This article highlights recent trends in the enforcement of IPR in the European Union (EU), drawing on major jurisprudence to illustrate current challenges and solutions.

An Overview of the Fight Against Counterfeiting in Europe

The year 2023 marked a significant milestone in the EU’s efforts to combat counterfeiting. Over 152 million counterfeit items were intercepted, with an estimated value of approximately 3.4 billion euros. This represents a 77% increase compared to the previous year, highlighting the growing effectiveness of surveillance and enforcement measures, thanks to international cooperation and technological advancements.

Most Affected Product Categories

Products such as “Games,” “Toys,” and “Recorded CDs/DVDs” dominate the seizures in terms of volume. However, the rise in violations involving “packaging materials” and “labels” reveals a new trend where counterfeiters use neutral components to evade customs controls. This strategy was addressed in Coty Germany GmbH v. Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-567/18, CJUE, 2020), where the Court clarified the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms. Essentially, the company is not liable for trademark infringement unless it actively participates in offering or marketing counterfeit products.

Performance by Member States

Ten European countries stand out for their major contributions to seizures, with Italy taking the lead (74% of intercepted items). France, Romania, and Spain are also key players in these enforcement operations. The importance of cross-border cooperation was underscored in Top Logistics BV v. Bacardi & Company Ltd (C-379/14, CJUE, 2015), which clarified the conditions for seizing goods in transit within the EU

Transportation and Evasion Strategies

Counterfeiters exploit various transportation methods to move their products. Postal shipments account for 37% of cases, while maritime transport dominates in terms of volume, with containers holding thousands of items. This diversity underscores the need to adapt control methods to each logistical channel.

Trademarks at the Heart of Infringements

Trademarks are the most targeted rights, accounting for 84% of recorded infringements in 2023. Copyright violations (7%) and designs (3%) also raise concerns, particularly for high-profile brands.

Dreyfus: A Strategic Partner for IPR Protection

As an intellectual property specialist, Dreyfus offers key services to counter infringements:

Proactive Monitoring: The company uses advanced technologies to detect potential violations in physical and online markets.
Legal Management: With solid legal expertise, Dreyfus assists clients in IPR-related disputes by collaborating with national and international authorities.
Training and Awareness: By educating companies on the best prevention strategies, Dreyfus helps strengthen their internal capabilities.
Institutional Partnerships: The company works closely with organizations such as the EUIPO to enhance protection measures in the European market.

Future Challenges and Perspectives

Several challenges remain:

Local Assembly: Counterfeiters use innovative strategies to assemble unbranded products in Europe, avoiding border seizures. In Nintendo v. BigBen Interactive (CJUE, C-25/16, 2018), the CJUE confirmed that intellectual property rights apply even when production stages are outsourced.
E-commerce: The speed of online transactions complicates the detection and tracking of infringements. This issue was highlighted in Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08, CJUE, 2010), which clarified the responsibilities of advertising platforms.
Regional Disparities: Differences in resources and priorities among member states hinder a coordinated response. The case Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Aldi Süd (TGI Paris, 2019) illustrates the impact of variable standards on protecting geographical indications within the EU.

To address these challenges, Dreyfus advocates for a comprehensive approach based on technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data, as well as better harmonization of procedures across the European Union.

Conclusion

The year 2023 represents a turning point in the fight against counterfeiting in Europe. Thanks to a combination of concerted efforts, technological innovations, and landmark judicial decisions, the EU is better equipped to tackle these threats. Dreyfus positions itself as a key player in supporting companies in this essential battle, contributing to the protection of intangible assets and the preservation of European competitiveness. With concerted efforts and innovative solutions, it is possible to significantly reduce the impact of counterfeiting on the economy and society.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn

Instagram