Dreyfus

The Czech Republic has recently amended its Trademark law in order to transpose the EU directive of 16 December 2015 (2015/2436 UE) and integrate these legal provisions into its legislative system. The legal provisions came into force on 1 January 2019.

Various amendments have been made to the Czech law, the main ones are discussed below.

The requirement of graphic representation of the trademark has been removed. It is now possible to register a trademark provided that it can be represented by any existing technological means such as MP3 files. Hence, in addition to the registration of a word trademark, semi-figurative trademark or figurative trademark, it is now possible to register a sound trademark, a position trademark, a shape trademark, a colour trademark, a movement trademark, or a hologram trademark, for example.

Moreover, it is no longer possible to register a trademark for goods and services whose title is too broad, for example by using a title from the Nice classification or by using a term that is too general.

In addition, the Czech trademark office previously carried out a search among prior trademarks registered for identical goods or services. From now on, it is no longer the case. Henceforth, it is now up to the trademark owner to set up a monitoring for its trademarks and to file an opposition within the time limit.

Furthermore, amendments regarding the opposition proceeding have also been introduced.  The possibility to request the opponent to provide proof of use in opposition proceedings has been introduced for trademarks that have been registered for more than 5 years. The applicant has a period of two months from the notification of the opposition in order to make such a request. The evidence must be filed by the opponent within 4 months from the request of proof of use.

Finally, changes relating to counterfeiting have also been introduced with this reform in order to provide better protection against counterfeiting. For instance, the owner of prior trademark rights can prevent importation of goods whose main characteristics resemble his prior trademarks before these products are released for free circulation in Czech Republic.

Trademark law in the European Union is becoming increasingly uniform. However, there are still some specific features that need to be taken into account. Dreyfus is a specialist in trademark protection and defense strategy in the European Union. Our IP boutique law firm can develop a strategy tailored to your needs.

In France, the transposition of the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 2015 is still ongoing. The draft orders, published on February 15, plan numerous amendments to the French Intellectual Property Code. We will focus here on the refusal grounds of an application for registration of a trademark, extended by the project.

As the law currently stands, article L. 711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code sets out three grounds for refusal of registration:

“The following may not be adopted as a mark or an element of a mark:

1. a) Signs excluded by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as revised, or by paragraph 2 of Article 23 of Annex 1C to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization;
2. b) Signs contrary to public policy or morality or whose use is prohibited by law;
3. c) Signs liable to mislead the public, particularly as regards the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services.”

Paragraph c) refers here to the arms, flags or emblems of a State of the European Union, as well as to signs containing a geographical indication identifying wines or spirits if the designated products do not actually have this origin.

The draft enactment transposing Directive (EU) 2015/2436 would modify article L.711-3, which is well established in French law. Thus, if the violation of public policy or accepted principles of morality,  fraud as to the nature, quality or origin of the product or service, or use of State emblems, would remain grounds for refusal of registration of a trademark, the draft order amends Article L. 711-3 and adds other grounds for refusal.

Designations of origin and geographical indications

In accordance with Article L. 711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, an application for registration of a trademark may be refused if the sign is or contains a geographical indication falsely identifying the origin of wines or spirits.

This ground is retained in the draft enactment, but it is reformulated and extended. In that respect, the refusal of an application for registration could now be based on traditional terms for wines and traditional specialities guaranteed, knowing that these terms refer, among others, to the methods of production, elaboration, exploitation and ageing of the wine or to its quality.

Moreover, the previous existence of an appellation of origin or a geographical indication may in itself justify the refusal to register a trademark. Article L. 711-4 already allows to invoke an earlier appellation of origin or geographical indication to counter the registration of a new trademark in opposition proceedings. The new wording of article L. 711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code therefore reinforces the protection granted to appellations of origin and geographical indications and thus demonstrates their economic importance.

Previously registered plant variety denominations

French law protects plant varieties by issuing a plant variety certificate (Article L. 623-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code). However, the Intellectual Property Code did not make any explicit link between this certificate and the registration of a trademark. Protecting a trademark which reproduces the characteristics of a new plant was therefore possible.

From now on, the existence of an earlier registered plant variety constitutes grounds for refusal of the registration of a new trademark which would reproduces its main characteristics or its denomination (Article L. 711-3 modified). Consequently, just as in the case of appellations of origin and geographical indications, the registration of the trademark will be blocked from the beginning of the procedure.

Applicant’s bad faith

The “Trademark Reform Package” allows States to refuse to register a trademark because of applicant’s bad faith. The French Government used this opportunity in his draft orders and introduced this ground for refusal in article L. 711-3.

The text is clear on this point but leaves unanswered the question of the interpretation of the notion of “bad faith”. Therefore, the definition of this concept is left to the discretion of INPI representatives. The scope of this notion of bad faith will progressively be clarified by future decisions. The French Cour de Cassation has already ruled on the meaning of this concept in cancellation proceedings. .It appears that bad faith is a subjective element, which is assessed at the time of the filing, and is determined by all the facts. The applicant will have to intend to prevent the use of an earlier trademark, without regard to the interests of its holder. In other words, it is necessary to characterize an intention to harm. (Cass Com., 3 February 2015 n°13-18025)

In order to characterize this bad faith on the day of the application for registration, it can therefore be assumed that the intention of the applicant to act fraudulently and his knowledge of an existing prior right will also play a role. However, it is not possible to limit bad faith to cases where the applicant seeks to take ownership of the trademark of others. Bad faith might also refer to situations where the applicant seeks to prevent the filing of other trademarks. The refusal to register the mark thus also helps to fight parasitism and unfair competition.

Moreover, it should not be forgotten that, in France, the refusal of registration is made by a representative of the INPI. The latter will interpret bad faith on a case-by-case basis and in complete independence.

In other words, the grounds for refusal introduced by the draft orders implementing the “Trademark Reform Package” are not negligible. They extend the leeway granted to the INPI from the very beginning of the registration procedure. These changes focus on the development of geographical indications, designations of origin and plant varieties in order to take into account economic situations.

To be continued…

Following our previous analysis of the modifications generated by the transposition project of the “Trademark Package” in French law, we focus our analysis on the elimination of the graphical representation requirement.

Indeed, the enactment of the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 2015 marks the disappearance at the European level of the graphical representability requirement, which was essential for the registration of a trademark. It is now sufficient that the sign is distinctive and represented “on the register in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor.”(Article 3). This amendment is taken into account by the draft ordinances of the “Trademark reform package” with a new article L. 711-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which would make it possible to register olfactory or taste marks.

The graphic representability, a barrier to the recognition of olfactory and gustatory marks

The graphical representation requirement has not prevented the protection of three-dimensional or sound trademarks, but it has proved to be an insurmountable obstacle for the registration of olfactory or taste trademarks.

However, the registrars were not reluctant to grant such protection, as shown by a successful application for a grass smell (OHIM, 11 February 1999, R. 156/1998-2) or a beer smell (Unicorn Products, GB 2000234). If the requests were not always successful, the possibility of protection had at least the merit of existing. However, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had put an end to this development in its Sieckman judgment (ECJ, 12 December 2002, Case C- 273/00) by stating that “in respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements of graphic representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a description in written words, by the deposit of an odour sample or by a combination of those elements.” Fulfilling the requirement of graphical representation required therefore the presence of “figures, lines or characters”, which was possible for sound (graphic) and three-dimensional (figure) trademarks, but was impossible for olfactory and gustatory trademarks.

An abolition to European case-law

By removing this requirement, the new article L. 711-1 would implement a welcome change. Designs, patents, and copyright, were inadequate to protect these olfactory and gustatory signs. Bringing an action for infringement was therefore not possible, and only the action for unfair competition remained. However, it was too restrictive.

From now on, article L. 711-1 will require that the sign must be represented “in such a way as to enable any person to determine precisely and clearly the object of protection”. The object of protection, that is, the sign for which registration as a trademark is sought, must first and foremost be identifiable.

The main difficulty in registering an olfactory or gustatory trademark will therefore be to find a sufficiently intelligible, durable, clear and precise way to express the smell or the taste one wishes to protect. This translation will be able to make it possible to determine what the sign is and which special feature makes it distinctive. For example, for a rose smell, it will have to be possible to distinguish the smell of a certain type of rose and not all rose smells. The sign will correspond to that particular smell and its representation must make it possible to identify and recognize it. The applicant will also be able to provide a chemical formula. We will thus identify the smell thanks to this formula, which can be represented graphically. Indeed, if the limits of the sign are not clearly determined, it will be then impossible to verify that it satisfies the other criteria of the mark, distinctiveness in particular.

These new representations are now possible to implement thanks to technical means offering sufficient guarantees. Thus, a chemical formula, a description in written words, an odour sample, or a combination of those elements can now satisfy the graphical representation requirement.

Effects of the removal of the graphical representation  requirement

Removing the requirement for graphical representation requirement leads up to adapting to new technologies, to the development of innovation and to competitiveness between companies. Nevertheless, the evolution of trademark law in this area is only at its beginning and raises many questions. For instance, the INPI (as other European offices), is not used to having to examine chemical formulas or samples, and it will have to adapt to these new means of representation and their practical consequences. In addition, these changes will also impact in practice how counterfeiting is assessed.  For example, establishing fraudulent use of a smell will be more difficult than establishing the same fraud for mark represented graphically.

Consumers make little use of their sense of smell or their taste buds to identify a brand. Therefore, once registered, an olfactory or a gustatory mark could be at great risk to be forfeited. These marks are few in number, at least for now, and thus it is likely that the competent courts will have to wait a long time before being able to assess what does or does not constitute a precise and clear representation. The recognition of these trademarks by law is welcome, but it will not necessarily lead to their widespread use.

To be continued…

SOURCE: WOPI, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, 15 November 2018, No. D2018-1865, Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Michael Wigton, <cbdhempmeds.net>

 The opinions of the experts may diverge regarding how to interpret the conditions of the UDRP. Here, it is the first of the conditions that is under discussion, the one according to which there must be a risk of confusion between the domain name under attack and the trademark rights invoked.

Is this a purely formal analysis, that is to say are the trademark and the name identical or at least very similar? Or should we proceed to a more in-depth analysis, to determine whether a risk of confusion in the minds of the internet users is precisely likely to emerge?

Medical Marijuana, Inc., based in California, specialises in the manufacture and sale of numerous products, such as cosmetics and food supplements that include cannabidiol (CBD), a hemp by-product.

Medical Marijuana is the owner of several brands identifying their products, registered in the United States, Peru and Mexico. All include the sign “HEMPMEDS” (“hemp” meaning the plant and “med” being short for “medicines”). Two trademarks protected in the United States are the sign “HEMPMEDS YOUR TRUSTED CBD SOURCE”, one verbal and the other semi-figurative, it being specified that in both cases, the USPTO (United States Trademark Office) required a disclaimer on the term “HEMPMEDS”, i.e. a waiver of any exclusive right on this term.

This company found that one of its competitors, Bionic Sports Nutrition, LLC, had registered the domain name <cbdhempmeds.com>, which, according to Medical Marijuana, infringes their rights. They therefore filed a UDRP complaint before the WOPI Arbitration and Mediation Centre, submitting the case to a panel of three experts. The contentious name was reserved on 4 July 2017 and it links to a site on which the defendant markets its products containing CBD.

The applicant considers that this domain name causes confusion with its brands, since it is composed not only of the sign “HEMPMEDS” but also the acronym “CBD”. In addition, it states that the grantee was necessarily aware of the rights of the applicant, as it asserts that it is well-known in the cannabidiol sector.

The defendant does not agree. It submits that the applicant has no rights over the expression “CBD HEMP MEDS” or on “HEMP MEDS” alone. Furthermore, it considers that it has rights to the domain name since it uses it to sell CBD-based products via its subsidiary, CBD Medical, LLC.

The experts consider the first condition of the UDRP proceedings to be fulfilled: the applicant holds identical or similar trademark rights to the domain name, to the extent that a likelihood of confusion may arise. The analysis carried out corresponds to an analysis that can be described as formal: the applicant has trademark rights, similar to the domain name.

However, the experts express a reservation in the midst of their analysis. They base their remarks on the Mexican and Peruvian semi-figurative trademarks. This is because the American marks “HEMPMEDS YOUR TRUSTED CBD SOURCE” include a disclaimer on the sequence “HEMPMEDS” and the applicant does not have any rights to the sign “CBD” alone.

In addition, the fact that the applicant owns a trademark “HEMPMEDS”, stylised, registered with the Supplemental Register does not permit it to claim trademark rights enforceable in this context. It should be noted that this register only offers limited protection compared to the main register.

These remarks have an impact on the examination of the two other UDRP conditions. Indeed, the experts conclude that the defendant uses the domain name for a bona fide offer of products, namely for the sale of CBD-based products, and that the terms included in the domain name merely illustrate this offer.

Similarly, since the experts do not take account of brands registered in the United States, they consider there is no proof that the grantee had knowledge of the foreign rights of the applicant.

The complaint is therefore rejected.

To return to the first condition of the UDRP. One of the experts wished to express additional observations on this subject, focusing on the fact that it is, in principle, required to prove a likelihood of confusion between a trademark and a domain name. Now, the expert considers that this is not the case here. To support his point, he proposes an example: If a person held a trademark right in Greece on the sign “COMPUTER”, would we recognize that confusion is possible with a domain name such as <computer.org>?

These remarks show that some experts are more flexible than others concerning the analysis of the first criterion of the UDRP. Nonetheless, note that generally, while sometimes the first condition is considered to be met, the experts nonetheless remain very vigilant about the other conditions, to make sure the decisions rendered are equitable.

Domain name registrations are constantly increasing, reaching a growth rate of 3.5% in 2018. Domain names represent a valuable business asset for companies as they are the gateway to websites related to their activity. From now on, protecting domain names associated with the company’s trademark or activity has become almost as important for the company as protecting its trademarks. In addition, domain names are an important mean for cyberattacks and as a consequence they require vigilance from domain names owners and Internet users.

Alternative dispute resolution procedures (such as UDRP) remain for the time being the most appropriate solution, rather than through the courts, to resolve disputes related to these valuable assets. Moreover, domain name disputes have recently increased. Due to the anonymization of WHOIS forms, which are intended to comply with the GDPR, access to the data of the domain name owner are almost impossible. As a result of this absence of data, it is now more difficult to request the domain name owner to transfer the disputed domain name, which leads to an increase of UDRP procedures. In view of the growing importance of domain names, new systems must be designed such as procedures for lifting anonymity.

As a result of the increasing value of domain names, new questions emerge. Why are domain names both a valuable business and a risk factor? What are the impacts of cyberattacks on domain names? How to resolve domain name disputes? How to prevent domain name related risks?

In its April 2019 issue, “Expertises” magazine devotes an interview to Nathalie Dreyfus, who answers all the questions of Sylvie ROZENFELD related to domain names.

Here is a brief overview:

“The domain name continues to represent an important intangible asset of the company, although sites are increasingly accessed through search engines or social networks. It has become almost as important as a brand. It also represents a risk, a factor of vulnerability for companies. Cyber threats are more numerous and more complex, such as the pursuit of reservists. More than ever, surveillance is needed with the implementation of risk mapping and a defence strategy. »

Read the full interview here: Expertise n°445.

SOURCE: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, 28 October 2018, No. D2018-2016, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., <bmw.com>

The decision rendered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre illustrates the case of homographic infringements, that is to say where a Latin letter is replaced by a letter that is practically identical, from another alphabet, so that the difference is not immediately detectable by the web surfer, particularly on tablet computers and telephones.

In the case at hand, it is the famous BMW trademark (Bayerische Motoren Werke) that was targeted by the infringement. A third party had reserved the internationalised domain name <bmẉ.com> (<xn—bm-e3s.com>), that is to say, containing non-Latin characters.

This name was used to carry out phishing. When accessed on a mobile device it pointed to a web page displaying the official BMW logo and offering free BMW cars by means of a survey aimed to “phish” for consumers’ information (obtain such information fraudulently by usurping the identity of BMW).

When such a fraud occurs, it is strongly recommended, alongside the actions conducted in the first instance to have the contentious site closed down, to register an extra-judiciary UDRP type complaint to be able to take back control of the name.

In the case at hand, the grantee did not respond to the complaint registered, which is not surprising given the manifestly fraudulent nature of the situation described.

The expert naturally recognised the risk of confusion between the BMW trademark and the <bmẉ.com> domain name, recalling that the experts acknowledge that the internationalised domain names are the equivalent of their Punycode translation.

Similarly, without difficulty, the absence of a legitimate interest of the defendant as well as its bad faith have been acknowledged.

What should be retained from this decision is that when you own the rights to a trademark, it is essential to proceed to extensive surveillance of one’s brands on the Internet and particularly of the corporate trademark (which corresponds to the company’s business name or trading name).

Surveillance of the trademark among non-Latin characters is desirable, among other things, in order to be able to detect any domain name that could be perceived as official by consumers and to act as quickly as possible against the most threatening names, i.e. those almost identical to the trademark.

Keywords: Non-Latin characters – IDN – Punycode – BMW – phishing – identity fraud

This year Nathalie Dreyfus and Dreyfus law firm were yet again recognized as “Excellent” in the category “Best Intellectual Property Law Firm in France” for brands and designs in 2019.

It is an honor for the firm to be ranked by the magazine among the best experts from different areas of law practice from Industrial Property to Tax Law in 50 countries.

Since 2017 Dreyfus has been a recognized expert in domain names and Internet risk mitigation cases – as Décideur Magazine puts it in its 2019 ranking:

« DREYFUS – ASSISTS CLIENTS TO ANCIPATE RISKS ON THE INTERNET

Track record: An NTIC specialist, the firm has implemented a new strategy this year to help clients to better comply with the GDPR. Developed for large companies and start-ups alike, the strategy helps integrating the new legislation and anticipating risks on the Internet. It also contains many international cases handled by Nathalie Dreyfus.

Why we are different: Dreyfus team provides custom tailored legal services to clients on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure full protection of their brands and domain names. The firm also has a dual legal and technical expertise that allows handling particularly complex, atypical or exceptional cases. »

We want to thank Leaders League for the recognition.

Dreyfus assists companies in management and valorization of their IP assets such as trademarks, designs, copyrights, domain names and patents in the off-line realm and on the internet.

On February 15 the French Government published draft orders transposing the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 2015 known as the “Trademark reform Package”. This Directive aims to harmonize and modernize trademark law in the EU Member States.

This reform, which came into force on March 23, 2016 led to the adoption of two new legislative texts:

• Regulation 2015/2424, amending Regulations 207/2009/EC and 2868/95/EC, which became effective on October 1^st, 2017.
• Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of 16 December 2015, amending Directive 2008/95/EC. It had to be transposed into national legislation within three years, i.e. before January 14, 2019.

The draft orders were published one month late, on February 15. Major changes are made to the legislative and regulatory parts of the Intellectual Property Code as well as the Judicial Organization Code and the Consumer Code.

It is therefore essential to outline the main changes that could affect French Intellectual Property Code.

The grounds for refusing an application for registration are expanded. In addition to  signs that are contrary to public policy or morality, and signs that provide misleading information on the quality of a product or service that were already excluded from registration, the order now includes grounds such as:

• Appellations of origin
• Geographical indications
• Previously registered plant variety denominations
• Applications made in bad faith by the applicant

These grounds for refusing an application for registration are now expressly included in modified article L. 711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Being in line with the objective of the “Trademark reform Package”, the draft order abolishes some of the national French law peculiarities, bringing it in line with the EU law. Thus, the graphic representation requirement in Article L. 711-1 is abolished. It should therefore be possible to register sound trademarks, multimedia trademarks, motion trademarks, etc. in the same way as for European Trade Mark since 2017 before the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office).

Similarly, the opposition procedure against a trademark protected in France is modified to become more similar to European Trademark Office (EUIPO) opposition procedures.

Prior rights that may be invoked in an opposition are extended – Amendment of Article L. 712-4 of the Intellectual Property Code. From now on, an opposition action against a registration application may be based on:

• A well-known trademark or a notorious trademark, when the trademark in dispute is likely to unfairly take advantage from the reputation of the trademark or cause prejudice thereto
• A company name or a trade name
• A geographical indication
• The name, image or reputation of local authorities, institutions or public law bodies .

The draft order adds that an opposition may be based on several rights pertaining to the same owner as it is already the case in opposition proceedings before the EUIPO for European Union trademarks.

The opposition procedure is also modified. For a period of two months following the publication of the application for registration, a formal opposition to the application for registration may be filed before the INPI in the event of infringement of one of the earlier rights. However, the draft amends articles L. 712-4 and R. 712-14 of the French Intellectual Property Code: in addition to the usual period of formal opposition, the opponent has one additional month to provide the statement of the grounds on which the opposition is based, as well as certain documents identifying the parties.

The decision will be rendered after an adversarial procedure that includes an investigation phase involving a debate between the opponent and the owner of the contested application for registration.

The regime for the protection of certification trademarks and collective trademarks is amended – Amendment of Articles L. 715-1 et seq. The draft order indeed introduces new articles relating to the regime for the two above-mentioned types of trademarks.

Disputes concerning invalidity or revocation of trademarks are specified. Articles L. 716-1 to L. 716-5 are amended, and renamed, and the draft order proposes the following changes:

• An action for invalidity filed by the owner of an earlier trademark may be rejected if, at the request of the owner of the later trademark, he cannot prove genuine use of the earlier trademark during the five years preceding the action.. Lack of use of prior trademark will become an argument in defense against an action for a declaration of invalidity of a trademark.

• Invalidity actions become imprescriptible (Article L. 716-2-6) with the exception of actions based on well-known trademarks within the definition of the Paris Convention (Article 6 bis) which are time-barred after 5 years from the registration date of the contested trademark with the exception of tolerance of the subsequent trademark by the owner of the prior rights for a period of no less than 5 years.

• Clarification of the starting point for the prescription of infringement proceedings. According to new article L. 716-4-2, it is 5 years as of the day on which the holder of a right knew or should have known about the last act of counterfeiting enabling him to exercise it.

It should also be mentioned that the amendment of Article L. 714-5 specifies the starting point of the period of disqualification for non-use. Although the duration of the period of non-use was defined before (i.e. 5 years), the starting point of the period was hard to determine due to differences in interpretation in the case law. The draft thus explicitly sets the rules for calculating the deadline for a revocation stating that it should be calculated starting (at the earliest) from the date of publication of the trademark registration.

The procedure for filing an action for invalidity or revocation of a trademark is simplified with the introduction of an administrative procedure before the INPI. Article L. 713-6 becomes article L. 716-5.

Thus, revocation actions and invalidity actions filed as a principal action (and where the action for invalidity is exclusively based on grounds of absolute invalidity or certain grounds of relative invalidity) will now be exclusively submitted to the INPI, unless some judicial litigation is already pending between the parties. In that case, the judge will remain exclusively competent. Similarly, other civil actions and trademark claims, such as invalidity actions and revocation actions filed as counterclaims, will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts (Tribunal de Grande Instance).

This new procedure before the INPI should come into force in the first quarter of 2020.

Finally, the last notable point of the draft order is the modification of the renewal date of a French trademark, included in modified article R. 712-24. In principle, a trademark may be renewed until the last day of the month when it expires, and within an additional grace period of six months. The draft order provides that the request for renewal can be made, at the earliest, one year before the expiry of a trademark, and at the latest within an additional period of six months from the day after the expiry date for an extra fee.

This is probably the biggest reform of French national trademark law since the law of January 4, 1991 transposing the 1988 Directive. Although the draft orders have not yet been validated, it is nevertheless subject to public consultation. Various IP associations involved in the consultation had to propose their amendments before March 20, 2019. The final draft order of the “Trademark reform Package” should be adopted within 3 months.

Trademark law has long recognized the principle of specialty, which signifies that the owner of a trademark has a monopoly on its sign only for the goods and services that the sign designates. However, application of this principle needs a further consideration in cases related to alcoholic beverages.

 Article L713-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code states that “The following are prohibited, unless authorized by the owner, if this may result in a risk of confusion on the part of the public: a) The reproduction, use or affixing of a trademark, as well as the use of a reproduced trademark, for goods or services similar to those designated in the registration“.

Thus, according to the principle of specialty, two identical or similar signs may coexist as long as they do not designate the same goods and services. However, such a reasoning is challenged in cases when the French public health law is involved (Evin Law n° 91-32 of January 10, 1991).

According to Evin Law, a registered trademark designating alcoholic beverage products can be subject to a cancellation action by owners of prior trademarks even when their trademarks do not designate alcoholic beverages in the specification.

Indeed, the Evin Law prohibits propaganda and indirect advertising of alcoholic beverages. The coexistence of a “new” trademark designating alcoholic beverage and prior trademarks  would be considered as a form of propaganda and indirect advertising of identical or similar trademarks designating alcoholic beverages.

In other words, if a company wishes to register an alcoholic beverage related trademark that is already in use by a prior trademark for goods other than alcoholic beverage products, it may face a conciliation procedure.

Article L.3323-3 of the French Public Health Code, a legal tool with a wide application range

The article L.3323-3 of the French Public Health Code states that: “Propaganda or indirect advertising is considered to be propaganda or advertising in favour of an organisation, service, activity, product or article other than an alcoholic beverage which, by its graphic design, presentation, use of a name, brand, advertising emblem or other distinctive sign, recalls an alcoholic beverage“.

It is on this legal ground that owners of prior trademarks designating goods and services other than alcoholic beverages may file an action in order to obtain cancellation of identical or similar post-trademarks designating alcoholic beverages.

The company named DYPTIQUE used this legal ground to obtain the cancellation of the trademark “Diptyque” registered by the company HENESSY.

The company named DIPTYQUE is the owner of two prior trademarks “Diptyque” – a French trademark designating classes 3, 14, 18, 21, 24 and 25, and a European Union trademark designating classes 3, 14 and 35.

DIPTYQUE manufactures and markets candles and scented water.

The company initiated a cancellation action against a trademark “Diptyque” registered by HENNESSY, a French cognac manufacturer, designating alcoholic products in class 33. According to Article L.3323-3 of the French Public Health Code any advertising made by DIPTYQUE is considered as indirect advertising of the products designated by the “Diptyque” trademark, which belongs to HENNESY, and is therefore prohibited

The existence of the cognac related trademark represents a real obstacle to DYPTIQUE’s business activities and makes it impossible to use its prior trademarks.

The French Court de Cassation, in its decision from November 20, 2012, ruled that “the registration of the Diptyque trademark by HENNESSY and the marketing of products under it create an obstacle to the free use of the first trademark“.

Article L.3323-3 of the French Public Health Code is therefore widely interpreted by the judges of the Court de Cassation. They do not take into consideration the fact that DIPTYQUE’s trademarks do not designate alcoholic beverage products in class 33 and do not in principle constitute prior right. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the provisions of the French Public Health Code prevails over the principle of specialty in trademark law.

This reasoning held by the High Court provides a real advantage for owners of prior trademarks that do not designate alcoholic beverages in protection of their trademark rights. However, such reasoning has recently been challenged by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris in the “Cache-Cache” case.

Article L.3323-3 of the Public Health French Code, a legal tool with a narrow application range

CACHE-CACHE is a major player in the ready-made clothing market. The company owns two prior “Cache-Cache” trademarks – a French trademark and a European Union trademark. The company turned to the Court of First Instance of Paris to obtain cancellation of an application for  registration of a trademark “Cache-Cache” filed in classes 31, 32 and 33 to designate alcoholic beverages.

The Court of First Instance of Paris, in its decision dated from November 3, 2017 dismissed the CACHE-CACHE case that was based on Diptyque case law. The judges ruled on favour of the defendant’s argument and  decided that despite public health considerations, an in-depth analysis and an overall assessment of the situation was required.

Thus, the court concluded that CACHE-CACHE did not demonstrate “how the exploitation of its brands for women’s clothing and accessories in its eponymous boutiques and on the Internet via its websites cachecache.fr and cachecache.com could be considered as indirect advertising in favour of alcoholic beverages“. Consequently, the mere identity or similarity of the trademarks involved cannot be sufficient to serve as indirect advertising for alcoholic beverages as prohibited by Article L.3323-3 of the Public Health Code.

In other words, the second trademark designating alcoholic beverages cannot ipso facto infringe the first trademark designating other goods and services.

Thus, in order to obtain cancellation of an identical or similar subsequent trademark, it is no longer possible to rely solely on  provisions of the French Public Health Code. It is necessary to demonstrate that there is actually indirect advertising that hinders the influence of the original trademark. Potential trademark’s damages can be demonstrated by proving that consumers can establish a link between the companies’ respective brands.

This decision narrows down a very broad application of article L.3323-3 of the French Public Health Code. While the restrictions contained in the article are limited in their scope, the principle of specialty and Article L.713-3 of the Intellectual Property Code are fully applicable again.

The new case law provides an opportunity for companies to register trademarks that are identical or similar to prior trademarks that do not designate alcoholic beverage products without facing a cancellation action with regard to their registration.

Subsequently, the owners of identical or similar prior trademarks that do not designate alcoholic beverage products will not be able to claim prior rights in an absolute manner on the grounds that the coexistence of trademarks would hinder their business activity, and, in particular, their advertising strategy with regard to the provisions of Evin law.

It is still unclear whether the judges of the Appeal Court and the Court de cassation will follow the reasoning of the Court of First Instance of Paris, or whether they will give a decision in line with the “Dyptique” case law of the Cour de Cassation.

We will follow the development of the case

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, either with or without ratification of an agreement, will have an impact on trademark law, domain names, and personal data alike. It is therefore necessary to understand the changes and get prepared.

Changes for trademark owners

   1. European Union trademarks (EUTM)

• EUTMs registered before Brexit will be protected automatically and free of charge by comparable trademarks in the United Kingdom (UKTM), without any loss of priority or seniority; an opt-out option is available.
• A holder of EUTMs located in the United Kingdom will need to appoint a representative in a Member State for correspondence purposes.
• Use of an EUTM only in the United Kingdom will no longer be considered as an actual use.
• UK courts will no longer have jurisdiction over European trademarks. Only the proceedings commenced before Brexit will continue before the courts in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom will no longer be bound by decisions of the Member States.

Dreyfus advises you to:

If you are an owner of a registered European trademark:

• No need for a new registration: your trademark will automatically be registered under a comparable brand in the United Kingdom.
• BUT our advice is to use your trademark in several countries and not only in the United Kingdom.
• If your trademark protection is about to expire, renew it before Brexit in order to automatically benefit from equivalent protection in the United Kingdom.

If you applied for an European trademark and your application has not yet been accepted:

• Try to obtain the registration before Brexit. If it is not possible, you will still benefit from a 9-month priority period when you will be able to apply for an equivalent trademark in the United Kingdom without any loss of priority or seniority.
• BUT anticipating trademark registration in the UK is useful in order to obtain prior rights in the EU and the UK, and to anticipate administrative delays due to an increase in number of UKTM trademark applications.

If you have initiated a trademark dispute proceedings :

• Resolve ongoing disputes that you initiated before the date of the exit of the United Kingdom. The outcome of the dispute concerning a European trademark will impact all the countries concerned, including the United Kingdom.

If you are a defendant in a trademark dispute :

• Wait for the effective date of the Brexit. The resolution after Brexit could allow retaining the trademark in the United Kingdom, while a resolution before Brexit will simply open the possibility for initiating the procedure in order to convert a European trademark into a UK trademark.
• Consider filing separate actions in the European Union and the United Kingdom. A custom strategy would be required for each individual case. An in-depth study will have to be carried out to determine the necessary procedures. Dreyfus advises you on the best strategy to adopt in your particular case.

   2. United Kingdom brands (UKTM)

• Trademarks registered in the United Kingdom can no longer be used as prior rights in proceedings against European trademarks.

Dreyfus advises you to:

• Register European trademarks now to obtain rights in the EU and protect your rights in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

   3. International brands (WOTM)

• International trademarks designating the EU will be treated same way as European trademarks.
• European trademark owners residing in the United Kingdom will no longer be able to apply for international trademarks based on European trademarks.

Dreyfus advises you to:

• Register international trademarks on the basis of your European rights, in order to obtain global protection.

Changes for holders of <.eu> domain names

Reminder: A domain name in <.eu> can be reserved by a company having its registered office, central administration or main place of activity in a Member State, or by any person residing in the EU.

• Companies and individuals residing in the United Kingdom will no longer be able to register or renew a domain name with <.eu> TLD.
• Domain names with <.eu> TLD for which the registrant is a resident of the United Kingdom will be deactivated and then re-opened for registration.

Dreyfus advises you to:

• Update your contact details now indicating that you are an EU resident (e.g. a subsidiary).
• If this is not possible, transfer your domain name to an EU resident now.
• Be careful to take the necessary measures to avoid a strategic domain name to become a target of cybersquatters.

Personal data changes

With the adoption of the Data Protection Act 2018, together with the GDPR in the UK the level of personal data protection requirements is expected to remain unchanged. In the event of a withdrawal agreement governing Brexit, the GDPR would become a provision of the United Kingdom domestic law.

However, the change of the United Kingdom’s status will have practical consequences for controllers and processors.

• Data controllers and processors will have to appoint a representative in the EU if they carry out processing activities related to persons in the EU.
• Transfers of personal data between the United Kingdom and EU Member States will no longer be unrestricted. As a third country, the United Kingdom could seek to benefit from an adequacy decision recognizing it as a state with an adequate level of protection of personal data. Otherwise, the transfer can only be made after appropriate security measures for personal data are put in place.

Dreyfus advises you to:

• Limit transfers to/from the United Kingdom to what is strictly necessary.
• Monitor the transfers to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the GDPR, for example by using “standard data protection clauses”.
• Mention the transfers in the information notices to the data subjects.