In 2013, ICANN launched a vast operation to remedy domain name saturation and promote competition by setting up new gTLDs. These new extensions have helped unclog the market for more traditional extensions such as “.com”.
With the next application window expected in 2022, many companies are already showing a strong interest in “.BRAND”, such as Uber, which reportedly announced it at an ICANN virtual meeting (as reported by a GoDaddy registrar).
The personalised extension has many advantages, such as trust, since the company only is able to allow the registration of a domain name in its “. BRAND”. It also shows the willingness of companies to invest in order to enhance their trademarks.
On the other hand, other companies, due to lack of use or for other reasons, such as the restrictions that weigh on any registry, decide to terminate their “.BRAND”. In May, June and July 2021, four companies proceeded to this termination. This is what the recent update of the ICANN website shows:
• The “.SWIFTCOVER” for the company Swiftcover of Axa.
• The “.RMIT” for the company Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
• The “.DABUR” for the company DABUR India Limited
• The “.LIXIL” for LIXIL Group Corporation
In 2012, many big companies applied for their “.BRAND”. It should be noted, however, that this application has a significant cost. In addition to the technical and consulting fees, the amount to apply was US$ 180,000 per application in 2012.
With the challenges raised by the security on the Internet and the obligations that weigh on companies, especially to protect the data of their customers, it is very likely, despite these costs, that the next round will be a real success. Many “.BRAND” are successfully used today, both from a marketing point of view and in terms of the security they provide to Internet users.
Prepare and prevent, don’t repair and prevent…This saying also applies to trademarks, since fraudulent payment notices are becoming more and more common nowadays.
How is this happening?
Dishonest private companies, scammers, approach trademark applicants directly to ask them to pay certain service fees or other payments that are in fact neither necessary nor legally required.
It is therefore crucial to be vigilant.
Since trademark registration and management are already time-consuming and expensive enough, it goes without saying that paying scammers for their so-called trademark services is unnecessary. You should be extra vigilant when enquiries about trademark procedures do not come directly from your usual counsel.
However, fraud is not always easy to detect and the imagination of fraudsters is endless.
For instance, some fraudsters approach trademark owners directly by e-mail and demand payment of certain expenses, fees or additional charges to obtain trademarks’ registration when these expenses are purely fictitious. The payment notices are often for trademark monitoring services, additional registration services or services related to trademark renewal.
The problem is that trademark owners are very often approached by a so-called official agency, company or institution and sometimes even a so-called public authority or government. They use the same official templates, signatures and stamps as these types of entities and they provide the exact data of the trademark application or registration in question. After all, this kind of information is relatively easy to find online.
Another issue is the cross-border nature of these scams.
It may happen that trademark owners receive a notice from a Russian, Indian or Chinese company. While it is perfectly possible that payment notices from foreign countries are made in good faith, it is always beneficial to carefully check the accuracy and legitimacy of such notices.
Here are our advices.
Firstly, we invite you to check the stage of the proceedings in which your trademark is located. Isn’t it strange to pay fees for the registration or renewal of a trademark if the time limit has not even started or has already expired?
We encourage you to be vigilant. Do not hesitate to ask us questions when you receive documents that do not come from Dreyfus. Indeed, it is always wise to contact your legal adviser before making a payment. Dreyfus is specialised in these matters and is fully aware of the applicable time limits, procedural steps and expenses.
There are also official offices and agencies that can be contacted in the event of a suspicious or misleading trademark notice. For instance, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can be contacted. Although this office does not have the legal authority to prevent companies from engaging in these types of fraudulent practices, the USPTO does assist in the fight against fraudulent trademark notices. The USPTO issues reports and works with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Trademark owners can always file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission. This commission has the power to investigate and even prosecute if, for example, a particular company commits fraudulent business practices on a large scale. Dreyfus can assist you in filing such complaints and prevent you from being entrapped.
Fraudulent trade mark notices are becoming increasingly common. It is important to be very vigilant, to check the applicable time limits, to contact your Trademark Attorney before making any payments. At Dreyfus, we work with trademark offices and official agencies, such as the USPTO, in case of trademark notices that are suspicious or appear to be misleading.
The 71st ICANN Summit gave its GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) the competence to take stock of the essential elements of its missions, reflected in its report of June 21, 2021. In the “Issues of Importance to the GAC”, several elements were highlighted.
1. The next round of new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name
Göran Marby, CEO of ICANN, recalled that strengthening competition and improving the opportunities of Internet users to benefit from their own identifiers is part of ICANN’s duty. The ICANN presented the ODP (Operational Design Phase). This is a system that provides information on the operational issues of the project and aims to implement advice to make the procedure more effective.
But on the other side of the coin, there are also fraudsters amongst the beneficiaries. This is the case, for instance, regarding new gTLDs that were launched on the market almost ten years ago (like <.icu> or <.guru>).
2. Addressing the issue of domain name abuse
The issue of DNS abuse remains a flagship issue for the CAG, who describes the problem as a “priority”. DNS abuse is a term that refers to piracy cases where domain names are registered and used for fraudulent purposes such as phishing. The idea of the Framework on Domain Generating Algorithms (DGA) associated with Malware and Botnets was created. The objective of this framework is to place registries at the center of the fight against these abuses, and to encourage them to prevent the blocking of domain names from DGA’s. These DGA’s are algorithms used to generate a very large amount of domain names that can serve as meeting points between control servers and the command, allowing botnets to thrive more easily.
3. Reliability of Data
The GAC highlighted the importance of the correctness and completeness of domain name registration. Data reliability is an important aspect to ensure the prevention of – and fight against DNS abuses. It recalls the obligation of registers and registration offices to verify, validate and correct data. One of the objectives is to respond to the pitfalls of these data in a timely and efficient manner. The GAC specified that this should not only concern compliance with the GDPR but that it should include all information relating to domain names.
4. Accessibility of data
The ODP for Stage 2 of the EPDP has been put on the table. The purpose of this ODP is to inform interested parties on the question whether the SSAD (System for Standardized Access/Disclosure) works in favor of the interests of the ICANN community, especially in view of its impact in terms of costs. For the record, via the SSAD, it is possible to get information about requests that demand to lift the anonymity on certain domain names.
Phase 2A of the EPDP (Accelerated Policy Development Process) was discussed after the release of the EPDP Phase 2A Initial Report on the “Temporary Specification” (which is a new version of the Whois). This report provides guidance on how to publish registration information on companies that is not protected by the GDPR as well as email addresses for those who are anonymized.
5. Consumer protection
Finally, the recommendations of the CCT (Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review) were addressed. Among the recommendations that the GAC would like to see implemented was a pro bono assistance program as well as the recommendation concerning the identification of party chains that are responsible for registering domain names.
The ICANN’s report of June 21, 2021 highlighted several important elements. The fact that new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name engenders both benefices and dangers. It underlined the issue of domain name abuse and the importance of the correctness and completeness of domain name registration data, as well as the importance of accessibility of data and the need for consumer protection.
When you are the owner of a well-known trademark and you detect a domain name that is almost identical to it, and moreover on sale for a substantial amount of money, it is tempting to consider that it is a case of typosquatting. However, it is essential to pay attention to details.
The Valeo Group
The Valeo Group, which specializes in the design, production and distribution of automobile components, and its affiliate, Valeo Services, have experienced this, after filing a complaint against the <valoservices.com> domain name registered in 2018, which was offered for sale for EUR 2288.
The applicants were respectively registered in 1955 and 1987 and the name VALEO was adopted in 1980. Together they have 59 research centers and 191 production sites. They have received numerous awards for their products. They also own several word marks based on the “VALEO” sign, notably in France, the European Union, China and the United States, and also hold semi-figurative marks including the name “VALEO SERVICE”. Finally, they operate the domain names <valeo.com> and <valeoservice.com>.
The respondent, who answered the complaint, describes himself as an engineer based in the United States who has a large portfolio of generic domain names.
The respondent believes that there is no likelihood of confusion between the disputed name and the complainants’ trademarks. It explains that “valo” means “light” in Finnish and that a search on the sign “VALO” on Google or on trademark databases does not reveal any trademark including “VALEO”.
While these arguments, especially the second one, are interesting, they have no place in the analysis of the likelihood of confusion between a trademark and a domain name, which consists of a simple side-by-side analysis of the two names. Since the omission of the letter “E” can be perceived as a spelling mistake, the expert considers that there is indeed a similarity between the signs.
After this first step, the expert does not address the issue of the defendant’s rights or legitimate interest, but directly addresses the issue of bad faith. On this point, the applicants state that their trademarks are very well known and rely on decisions of the Chinese and European Trademark Union Offices as well as on old UDRP decisions.
The Respondent reiterates its arguments regarding the use of the Finnish language and its clearance searches. The respondent states that it has several domain names in a foreign language or containing the term “service”.
The panelist is skeptical about mixing Finnish and English in a domain name but considers the respondent’s research that shows that a query on “VALO” does not lead to the complainants and the fact that many companies around the world are named VALO or have adopted a name beginning with VALO. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, the expert points out that it is always possible to turn to a more appropriate procedure. The Panel also rejects the Respondent’s request to characterize the complaint as a reverse domain name hijacking.
Thus, it is advisable to put oneself in the shoes of the reserving party to determine whether he could have had knowledge of the trademarks, in particular by taking into account his country of origin and the field of activity in which the trademark is renowned. In this respect, the expert notes that the car parts sector is relatively discreet.
In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.
Following a decision by the Shenzhen Nashan People’s Court in China, a work generated by an algorithmic program has been deemed eligible for copyright protection.
1. An infringement action of a work produced by an automated program
Tencent, a company specializing in internet services and online advertising, published on its website a financial report article written by an algorithm-based intelligent writing system and data set, called « Tencent Robot Dreamwriter ».
After noticing that the article was reproduced without permission on a website operated by Shanghai Yingxun Technology, Tencent filed an infringement action against the said company.
However, the underlying and main issue in this dispute is whether a work generated with the help of artificial intelligence can adequately benefit from copyright protection.
The issue has been a constant source of controversy on an international scale for several years, and the Beijing Internet Court ruled in 2019 that only legal subjects expressly specified by Chinese copyright law should be considered as appropriate authors of works. Therefore, algorithmic programs are excluded. The court had also investigated on the process of generating the artificial intelligence at issue.
2. A precarious apprehension of creations generated by artificial intelligence
According to Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence of May 21, 2020 prepared by the WIPO Secretariat, a distinction should be made between « AI generated », which does not require human intervention and which can modify its behavior during an operation in accordance with the application of various factors and « AI assisted », which conversely requires material human intervention and/or direction.
Regarding the European Union, the Delvaux Report adopted in February 2017 by the European Parliament proposed to grant a « sui generis » intellectual property protection to works created by artificial intelligence and to reflect on the criteria of proper intellectual creation applicable to copyrightable works created by computers or robots.
3. Towards an evolution of copyright in the field of artificial intelligence
The case opposing Tencent to Shanghai Yingxun Technology is the first litigation to support copyright protection for a work generated by an algorithmic program.
During the proceeding, Tencent explained the entire process of the “creative team” used to generate and publish the article with the assistance of the “Dreamwriter” robot.
The court carried out a reasoning based in particular on two points of assessment.
Firstly, attention was classically paid to the form of expression, the content and structure of the article that have been judged original.
Then, the court turned to the generation process of the article. In this regard, it focused on the presence of factors indicating the creator’s individual selections, judgment and required skills, recognizing that the creation process differed from the ordinary process of creating written works.
This court decision tends to favor, eminently, a possible extension of copyright protection to works generated by artificial intelligence on an international scale. However, reflections on the criteria that could be specifically retained in order to appreciate the benefit of the protection of these works coming from a creative process that has been excluded until now, will continue to feed, and even prolong, the debate.
In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.
About this topic…
♦ All concerned: works generated by artificial intelligence
Some cases are interesting because of the judicial outcomes, others because of the reputation of the Parties in the proceedings, and others because they fall into both categories.
This is the case of the judgment rendered by the General Court of the European Union on June 16, 2021. This decision opposed the European Union Trademark Office (EUIPO) to the company of the famous singer and actress Miley Cyrus: Smiley Miley. The latter is challenging the decision rendered by the Office in the dispute between it and the company Trademarks Ltd.
The genesis of this procedure was the European Union trademark application, in the name of Smiley Miley, of the word mark MILEY CYRUS in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41.
Cyrus Trademarks Ltd. lodged an opposition against said application, on the basis of its earlier European Union “CYRUS” trademark No. 9176306, registered for goods in classes 9 and 20.
After the Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition because of the likelihood of confusion, Smiley Miley filed an appeal that the EUIPO rejected.
Indeed, the EUIPO considered that there was a likelihood of confusion in particular because the level of attention of the relevant public varied from medium to high, that, by all means, the goods and at stake were identical and similar, and that, visually and phonetically, the signs were relatively similar.
Were the signs distinctive, different and differentiable?
The key criterion for assessing the risk as a whole is the overall impression that the trademark produces.
The Board of Appeal first tried to analyze the value of a surname compared to a first name and concluded that a surname has a “higher intrinsic value”. Then, the Court considered that neither the first name Miley nor the surname Cyrus are common in the European Union, “including for the English-speaking public”.
Not surprisingly, the applicant denounced this reasoning. The Court of First Instance recalled that these principles cannot be applied automatically, as they are principles drawn from experience and not set in stone. That said, as the singer and actress enjoys real renown, the assessment of the distinctive character of her mark would be less Manichean than it would have been for a trademark based on the first and last names of a non-famous person. In this regard, the Court of First Instance agreed with the applicant, considering that none of the elements of the mark “MILEY CYRUS” was more dominant than the other.
Regarding visual and aural levels, the Tribunal deemed that the trademarks were similar despite their differences.
The delicate examination of the conceptual comparison of signs
The applicant assessed that, due to Miley Cyrus’s fame, the mark was distinct from the earlier trademark. The EUIPO considered that the name and surname of the singer had not become a symbol of a concept.
The Court of First Instance accepted that Miley Cyrus was a character known to the general public in the ordinary course of events (a finding the Board of Appeal did not challenge).
When the Court of First Instance assessed the conceptual meaning of “MILEY CYRUS”, using the Larousse definition of “concept”, its research showed that, given her fame, the singer had indeed become the symbol of a concept.
On the other hand, and insofar as the artist had never performed using her surname alone, even though it is not common, the Court concluded that the public would not necessarily perceive the term “Cyrus” as referring directly to Miley Cyrus.
The Court therefore concluded that the “earlier mark has no particular semantic meaning for the relevant public”. Moreover, insofar as the concepts of the two trademarks were quite different, this had the effect of blurring their visual and phonetic similarities.
The law established that to qualify a likelihood of confusion, there must be an identity or similarity of the signs and an identity or similarity of the goods and services designated. Here, the Court of First Instance’s reasonings allowed to discard the likelihood of confusion between the two marks; the star entered the European Union trademark registry under No.012807111.
This decision serves as a reminder that great conceptual differences between two trademarks can benefit an applicant. This case also adds to the list of cases where the fame of names has allowed visual and phonetic similarities of signs to be easily dismissed.
Anonymity on the Internet, or the eternal debate about social networks, raises more and more moral and legal questions with an exponential number of disputes brought before the courts.
The popularization of social networks is usually associated with anonymity, and therefore with the eternal debate about the lifting of anonymity in the face of the excesses of certain users. The murder in October 2020 of Professor Samuel Paty, targeted on social networks, or a wave of insults towards a candidate of Miss France at the end of 2020, have re-launched this discussion on the political scene. And especially the desire to add a section to the French legislative proposal “strengthening the respect of the principles of the Republic” to fight against online hate.
As a preliminary, it is interesting to really ask ourselves about anonymity on the Internet: are we really anonymous on the Internet?
The answer is no in most cases. Indeed, when we browse the Internet, an IP address anchors each of our researches. This address makes it possible to identify each device that connects to the Internet, even indicating the geographical location of the person.
This is one of the reasons why it is very difficult to leave no trace of your passage on the Internet, unless you are a very experienced technician.
The difficulty in reality is related to the obstacles linked to the recovery of these data allowing to identify a user, more than to the existence of anonymity stricto sensu. The Internet actors play a preponderant role in the possibility that some users have to hide their identity. This concealment has increased especially with social media.
The position of social networks
Social networks and other platforms argue that they are simply “host” or “technical intermediary” to reject a request to lift anonymity or to delete an account that is the author of contentious content.
Only a court decision can force these platforms to lift anonymity on an account. However, judicial decisions are still discreet. This can be explained on the one hand by the fact that positive law only allows the anonymity of an account to be lifted if the content is clearly illicit. On the other hand, the freedom of expression constitutes an obstacle to the lifting of anonymity.
However, some recent decisions seem to reverse this trend.
French jurisprudence on the move
On February 25, 2021, the Paris Judicial Court (Tribunal judiciaire, Paris, (ord. réf.), February 25, 2021, G. B. c/ Sté Twitter International Company) ordered Twitter to communicate the identification data of a user, in a case against a female Youtuber. Under Article 145 of the French Civil Procedural Code, “if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish before any trial the evidence of facts on which the solution of a dispute may depend, legally admissible measures of investigation may be ordered at the request of any interested party, on application or in summary proceedings. The influencer filed a request with the Court for the communication of identification data in parallel with the filing of a criminal complaint for defamation.
This communication of data by hosts is provided for by Article 6-II of the law of June 21, 2004. Indeed, this article provides for an obligation for hosts to hold and retain data allowing the identification of persons who have: “contributed to the creation of the content or of one of the contents of the services for which [they] are a provider”.
The Court granted the applicant’s request, as the existence of a legitimate reason was well established, namely the short duration of the storage of these identification data. The court thus ordered Twitter to disclose the necessary information:
♦ The types of protocols and the IP address used to connect to the platform
♦ The identifier used to create the account
♦ The date the account was created
♦ The first and last names or the company name of the account holder
The question posed to the CJEU, concerns the threshold of seriousness that allows an exception to the GDPR, which protects our personal data, and thus be able to condemn the platform concerned to lift the anonymity on the authors of the contentious content.
The answer of the CJEU, will not come before several months, however it will surely allow to have clearer criteria concerning the balance between the respect of freedom of expression, protection of personal data, and infringement of people.
These decisions could open the way to a more supervised and therefore better regulated anonymity on social networks. A growing body of case law in this area, could encourage the courts to more condemn more easily these platforms, to communicate these identification data in order to punish the illicit content that users publish too easily, taking refuge behind anonymity and freedom of expression.
Dreyfusis at your disposal to assist you in securing these projects.
We are pleased to present the “You, Me & IP” Podcast – Episode 4 in which Nathalie Dreyfus, founder of Dreyfus & Associates is the guest of Carlos Northon, founder and CEO of Northen’s Media PR & Marketing Ltd.
If you want to know more about intellectual property issues and discover a rich and experienced vision on the subject, you can also read the article Nathalie Dreyfus wrote for “The Global IP Matrix”.
The Internet has changed the way we do business. From now on, advertising agencies are no longer the only ones to promote their client’s products; influencers have become the privileged interlocutors of brands wishing to make their products successful. If this approach does not seem abnormal, legal actions are flourishing against these people, for trademark infringement.
In a recent case, “Petunia Products, Inc. V. Rodan & Fields, et al.”, the plaintiff Petunia Products (“Petunia”) filed a complaint against Rodan & Fields for infringement of its trademark “BROW BOOST”. The latter had hired the influencer Molly Sims in order to promote its “Brow Defining Boost” product. On August 6, 2021, Federal Judge Cormac J. Carney dismissed the influencer’s motion to dismiss the complaint of alleged trademark infringement, in particular, because the plaintiff had succeeded in demonstrating that the promotion of the contested product could mislead consumers and create a likelihood of confusion between the prior trademark and the defendant’s product.
In particular, the judge argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declared that influencers and celebrities could be held liable for false or, at the very least, misleading advertising. Judge Carney drew a parallel with the case at stake and considered that every statement made by an influencer could amount to liability. Besides, and this is the main point of the first decision in this case, the judge took into consideration the risk of confusion, keystone of any claim for trademark infringement. In this case, this risk was genuine since the products were in direct competition with each other, from two competing companies operating on the same market, with a very similar name.
However, this decision must be balanced insofar as Judge Carney only ruled on the motion to dismiss filed by the influencer.
Concept and role of the influencer
It is necessary to understand the legal definition of “influencer”. In the opinion in Maximian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Advocate General Bobek defines influencers as “everyday, ordinary internet users who accumulate a relatively large following on blogs and social media (…)”.
The French Authority of professional regulation of advertisement (ARPP) defines an influencer as “an individual expressing a point of view or giving advice in a specific field (…)”. It adds: “an influencer can act in a purely editorial framework or collaboration with a brand for the publication of content (product placement, (…), distribution of advertising content, etc.)” (free translation).
The influencer, therefore, has the power to direct the choices of the people following him/her, which is all the easier as the social networks on which they act are increasingly simple of use and accessible to the greatest number. Because of this ease of use, two American influencers, Kelly Fitzpatrick and Sabrina Kelly-Krejci promoted counterfeit products on Instagram and TikTok for sale on the Amazon platform. Amazon, therefore, filed a lawsuit on November 12, 2020 against the two women for fraudulent promotion of counterfeit products.
What is the influencer’s responsibility?
First of all, and Judge Conrey noted this in his decision, the influencer must state on the publication that the promotion of the brand results from a collaboration with the latter.
In France, this is also a recommendation of the French Professional Advertising Regulation Authority but most of all a legal obligation, which the French law for confidence in the digital economy (LCEN) of 2004 had already formulated. If the influencer can escape the net and not be found guilty of trademark infringement within the framework of a collaboration (that would be different if he/she promotes an infringing product directly), he/she could, be found liable of parasitism, unfair competition or misleading commercial practice, all three of which are heavily sanctioned under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code.
However, it is noteworthy that the influencer bears the weight of his/her responsibility concerning the information he/she publishes! Therefore, if a plaintiff can prove that the influencer in question was fully aware that the product he/she was promoting infringes on a third party’s rights, then it is likely that a judge would find the influencer and the company that contacted said influencer guilty of trademark infringement, either jointly or individually. Again, the judge will also consider the extent to which the product advertised by the influencer could confuse the public mind.
Hence, being an influencer is not without risks, and the partnership agreement concluded with a company must be carefully examined beforehand. Analysing the environment is essential as well as the product to be promoted must not infringe upon the prior rights of a trademark, even more so a competitor.
Dreyfus is at your disposal to assist you in securing these projects.
Underlying the performance of athletes, soccer clubs are engaged in a big race to develop their respective trademarks. FC Barcelona, until now the second biggest soccer club trademark, now risks losing its place to the club Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) as a result of Lionel Messi’s departure.
Lionel Messi has recently made the news by announcing his departure from FC Barcelona after more than two decades with the club.
This unexpected announcement is mainly due to the financial difficulties faced by FC Barcelona who are unable to take on the costs of the new contract agreed with the footballer two weeks ago..
This departure may not only impact the club’s quality of play but also its finances and especially its Intellectual Property rights.
A probable significant decrease in the value of the FC Barcelona brand
Brand Finance, in an article of 6 August 2021, estimated that the departure of Lionel Messi could cause an 11% decrease in the value of the club. This departure would cause a loss of €137 million. According to Brand Finance estimates. FC Barcelona has been, until now, one of the three most valued brands among soccer clubs (behind Real Madrid and in front of Manchester United). This news may well change the ranking.
Lionel Messi’s departure is even more impactful as he is considered one of the greatest players in the history of soccer. FC Barcelona’s image is therefore strongly impacted.
An opportunity for Lionel Messi’s new club.
On the other hand, the recruitment of the footballer by PSG is a real boon for the club which could see the value of its brand increase considerably. According to Brand Directory, the PSG brand is currently worth €887 million and ranks 7th among the most important soccer club brands.
The influence of players on intellectual property rights is such that some player brands even rival the value of some clubs’ rights. Messi has the most registered trademarks of all footballers. He has 115 trademarks, compared to 60 for Neymar, 53 for Cristiano Ronaldo and 46 for Paul Pogba. His trademarks are registered in various countries around the world, but mainly in Argentina, his country of origin. They are mainly registered in class 25 (Clothing), 28 (Games, sporting goods, toys) and 9 (Computer programs).
This trademarkportfolio, owned by the footballer, is also an asset for the club that recruits him, as it increases its importance and influence.
So, PSG now holds two of the biggest players in terms of brand portfolio, Neymar and Lionel Messi, and could also be inclined to recruit Paul Pogba.
An impact on the new cryptocurrencies
As a result of PSG’s brand value, its cryptocurrency, “PSG Fan Tokens”, has grown considerably. The club made its mark by concluding the first player signing that included fan tokens. This news caused the cryptocurrency to rise by +100% in just three days.
As a result, the simple signing of Messi boosted the club’s PSG token capitalization to almost €144 million.
The PSG trademark is on track for considerable expansion, which can only reinforce the strength and interest of Intellectual Property rights in the world of soccer. Whether it’s the value of a club brand, the derivative products derived from it, or its cryptocurrencies, the composition of soccer teams considerably influences the pecuniary value of clubs.
We are a law firm with a unique expertise in the exploitation of intangible assets. We keep you updated on issues related to intellectual property and the digital economy through articles written by the Dreyfus legal team.
Our site uses cookies to offer you the best service and to produce statistics, and measure the website's audience. You can change your preferences at any time by clicking on the "Customise my choices" section.
When browsing the Website, Internet users leave digital traces. This information is collected by a connection indicator called "cookie".
Dreyfus uses cookies for statistical analysis purposes to offer you the best experience on its Website.
In compliance with the applicable regulations and with your prior consent, Dreyfus may collect information relating to your terminal or the networks from which you access the Website.
The cookies associated with our Website are intended to store only information relating to your navigation on the Website. This information can be directly read or modified during your subsequent visits and searches on the Website.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Dreyfus is concerned about protecting your privacy and the Personal Data ("Data"; "Personal Data") it collects and processes for you.
Hence, Dreyfus complies every day with the European Union legislation regarding Data protection and particularly the European General Data Protection Regulation Number 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 (GDPR).
This Privacy Policy is aimed at informing you clearly and comprehensively about how Dreyfus, as Data Controller, collects and uses your Personal Data. In addition, the purpose of this Policy is to inform you about the means at your disposal to control this use and exercise your rights related to the said processing, collection and use of your Personal Data.
This Privacy Policy describes how Dreyfus collects and processes your Personal Data. The collection happens when you visit our Website, when you exchange with Dreyfus by e-mail or post, when exercising our Intellectual Property Attorney and representative roles, when we interact with our clients and fellow practitioners, or on any other occasion when you provide your Personal Data to Dreyfus, in particular when you register for our professional events.
In 2013, ICANN launched a vast operation to remedy domain name saturation and promote competition by setting up new gTLDs. These new extensions have helped unclog the market for more traditional extensions such as “.com”.
The Internet has changed the way we do business. From now on, advertising agencies are no longer the only ones to promote their client’s products; influencers have become the privileged interlocutors of brands wishing to make their products successful. If this approach does not seem abnormal, legal actions are flourishing against these people, for trademark infringement.