On March 27 the European Commission presented a package of initiatives in order to make the trademark registration system throughout the European Union “cheaper, quicker, more reliable and predictable”(1).
This package contains three elements: a recast of the 1989 Directive (codified as 2008/95/EC) approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks, a revision of the 1994 Regulation (codified as 2007/2009/EC) on the Community Trademark, and a revision of the 1995 Commission Regulation (2869/95) on the fees payable to the OHIM.
The proposed trademarks’ reform plans to remove the existing structure of ‘three classes for the price of one’ to replace it by a ‘one class per fee’ system that would be applicable both for the application of Community trademarks and for national trademark applications in Member States. Thus it would enable companies, and particularly SMEs, to apply for trademarks according to their actual needs. Currently, the present system allows for the registration of trademarks for up to three classes for a single fee. According to the proposal, applicants should be able to apply for the registration of a trademark for a single class. Thus, the fees payable would be lower for an application in only one or two classes, whereas a three-classes application would remain the same. The aim of this proposal is to allow access to trademark protection to all companies. As such, the Reform’s purpose is to increase legal certainty, to limit the risk of litigation and to enhance the competitiveness of the European Market.
This new fee system would equally reduce the costs of trademark renewal. It would also limit the potential congestion of trademark registers, which would no longer have to deal with trademark applications for goods and services classes, which are not actually needed by the applicant.
In practical terms, whereas the current fees payable for a three-classes application are € 900, a single-class application would cost € 775. A separate class fee would be paid for each additional product or service class applied for beyond the first one (€ 50 for the second and € 75 for the third class). Application fees for fourth and subsequent classes would remain unchanged (€ 150).
The European Union aims to adopt the amended Fees Regulation hopefully before the end of 2013. The Commission should adopt it after prior endorsement by the competent Committee on OHIM fees.
On June 4 2013, the White House released a memo detailing 7 legislative actions for Congress to take in order to tackle “Patent Assertion Entities” (PAE) or so-called ‘Patent Trolls’. The Administration is also going to take immediate executive actions designed to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in the American system.
Additionally, a report published by the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers takes the same position.
In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law to make the patents system more efficient and reliable. Innovators continue to face challenges from ‘Patent Trolls’, that, according to President Obama “don’t actually produce anything themselves” and instead develop a business model “to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort money out of them”.
The memo outlines changes to bring much more transparency to patent disputes, including new PTO (1) rules that will require patent applicants and owners to provide accurate identify information.
The White House wants to condamn the cases of manifest abuses and helps the ITC (2) to get rid of an excessive files number.
Some highlights from the report include:
Legal recommendations such as disclosure of “Real Party-in-Interest” when filing a patent claim.
Make it easier for defendant companies that win patent suits to get attorneys’ fees.
Changing the ITC standard for obtaining an injunction and better transparency to curb abusive lawsuits.
Ensure the ITC has adequate flexibility in hiring qualified Administrative Law Judges.
Executive actions include:
Tighten functional claiming: requiring patent applicants to explain their invention better and to limit those inventions to a specific way of accomplishing a task.
Empower downstream users: ending the abuse associated with targeting end users, such as small business, startups, and even individuals who find themselves facing lawsuit threats.
According to President Obama and all the belligerents, these issues are crucial for the economy of America, American jobs and innovation.
(1) Patent and Trademark Office
(2) International Trade Commission
Sources: Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues
As is common knowledge, each European country is currently developing its own structure for the sale of medicinal products on the Internet.
This was made possible for member countries of the European Union by a European directive in 2011 (1). This stated that member countries must allow on-line sales of medicinal products to the public, whilst allowing them to prohibit mail-order selling of medication sold on prescription, either for reasons of public health or safety.
In France, the directive became an Order on 19 December 2012 (2) which authorized the on-line sales of medicinal products.
The primary goal is to combat fraud and counterfeit medication. Across the world more than 18,000 illegal sites for on-line sales of medicinal products have been identified and shut down. 3.75 million potentially lethal medications have been seized. In France, seizures by customs have increased by 290%. This figure is a very significant increase compared to the previous statistics released in 2011 (3). In addition, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 50% of medicinal products sold on the Internet are counterfeit. The regulation of pharmaceutical on-line sales had therefore become essential in order to ensure consumer safety.
Which medicinal products can be sold?
Initially, the Order limited the sale of on-line medicinal products to the category of medication known as “medicinal medication”, in other words medicinal products sold over the counter in pharmacies. Then, in a further development, restricting on-line sales to only one category of pharmaceutical products that required no prescription was suspended by a decision of the State Council (4). This thereby widened the on-line market to include all medicinal products that could be purchased without a mandatory medical prescription. As a result, over 3,500 referenced products can now currently be sold on-line.
France: who can sell medicinal products on the Internet?
Since the sale of medicinal products on-line must comply with public health and safety requirements, this market is not open to every sales channel on the web. Only pharmacies registered in France as licensed medicinal pharmacies can sell medicinal products on-line. The same goes for the managers of mutual pharmacies or rescue services who may sell exclusively to their members. It is mandatory for the internet site to be part of a medicinal pharmacy. Any termination of the pharmacy’s medicinal activity would automatically lead to the closure of its internet site. Pharmacists are responsible for the content of the internet site that they edit and the context in which the electronic sales of medicinal products are made.
In France the ‘Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens’ (National Council of the Order of Pharmacists) maintains a list of authorized on-line pharmacies. There are currently 32 on this list as of June 24, 2013.
Under what conditions can an on-line pharmacy be opened?
Firstly, pharmacists must be authorized by the Local Health Authority to which they are affiliated. Then they must inform their local Order of Pharmacists of the launch of their internet site within the15 days following authorization. Finally, French sites that are authorized to sell on-line medicinal products must display the following compulsory elements:
contact details for the ‘ANSM’, the French national agency for the safety of medicinal and health products.
links to the websites of the Order of Pharmacists and the French Ministry of Health.
the European logo to be used by all member States of the European Union which relates to the electronic sales of medicinal products that is currently being established by the European Commission.
How is the situation being monitored and controlled?
Currently, the fight against illicit sales of medicinal products on the Internet is the result of international cooperation involving powerful agencies such as the International Institute of Research against Counterfeit Medicines (IRACM), Interpol and the World Customs Organization.
The Directive stipulates (5) that monitoring and control should be ensured by member States who must take all “necessary measures” so that counterfeiters incur “penalties that are stringent, proportionate and dissuasive.”
At a national level, the major player is ‘ANSM’, the French national agency for the safety of medicinal and health products which is involved in every stage from the production to the marketing of medicines. However, the ANSM’s main role is to monitor its territory. Up to now there has been no specific French organization established for the monitoring of the medicinal market on the Internet. The fight against fraud and counterfeit medication on the Internet is the result of collaboration between the OCLAESP (a centralized office that combats environmental hazards and risks to public health), the ANSM, and the services of the police, national gendarmerie and customs.
It is now essential that monitoring organizations should be established at a national level who would be fully specialized in internet surveillance. The ANSM needs assistance in its struggle against the sale of counterfeit medicines on Internet on French soil.
The Health Minister is shortly due to publish a decree defining best practice for sales distribution by electronic means. However, on May 15 2013 the French Competition Authority expressed its concerns about this ministerial order defining best practice (6), considering that the restrictions that it contains “are not warranted by public health considerations” and that they would limit the development of the on-line sales of medicinal products in France. In particular, according to the Authority, pharmacists should be able to propose medicines and parapharmaceutical products on the same internet site. The Authority equally takes issue with the compulsory alignment of sales prices on the Internet with products sold over the counter.
What sanctions can be imposed?
Pharmacists who fail to comply with regulations could face the temporary closure of their site plus the possibility of a fine. In addition, the distribution, marketing, offer of sale, act of sale or the importing of counterfeit medicinal products is punishable with 5 years imprisonment and a 375,000€ fine (7).
Both vigilance and swift action are required in order to identify internet sites selling illicit medicines. With the development of the legal sale of medicinal products on the Internet, there is even greater risk that consumers may be misled. Moreover, a survey indicated that 80% of French people were fearful that medication purchased on the Internet would be counterfeit (8), which clearly reflects the lack of consumer confidence as regards this new distribution channel.
This confidence will only be restored if there are adequate sanctions and appropriate surveillance. If a Google search is made for “on-line pharmacy” or “medicinal products on the Internet”, it becomes clear that illegal on-line pharmacies are still operational.
In theory, any advertizing for pharmaceutical dispensaries is illegal (9). In reality it is clear that on-line pharmacies do not hesitate to use tools for on-line advertizing or referencing such as Google Adwords.
As a start point, the use of a surveillance system for Google Adwords would appear to be essential in order to improve the monitoring and control of this market.
(1) Directive 2001/62/UE of the European Parliament and Council of June 8, 2011 having modified the prevention of the introduction of counterfeit medicinal products in the authorized supply chain, Directive 2001/83/CE of November 6 2001 that instituted a Community Code concerning medicinal products for human consumption.
(2) Order 2012-1427 of December 19 2012 confirmed by Decree 2012-15 of December 31 2012 and codified via articles L5125-33 and following, and R5125-70 and following of the Public Health Code.
(3) Source: internet site of the ‘Ordre des pharmaciens’.
(4) Referred Order of the State Council, February 14 2013 no 365459.
(5) Article 85, sixth quarter.
(6) Opinion no. 13-A-12 of 10 April 2013 on a draft resolution regarding good practice in the dispensation of medicinal products by electronic means published on May 15, 2013.
(7) Dispositions made by Order on December 19 2012 enforced by articles L5125-39 and L5421-13 of the Public Health Code.
(8) Survey by the ‘Pasteur Mutualité/Viavoice’ group on “the French and the sale of on-line medicinal products”. Sample of 1007 people, representative of the French population aged 18 and over, surveyed on February 28 and March 1 2013 by telephone.
(9) Articles L5125-31 and R5125-29 of the Public Health Code.
Of the 1930 applications announced by ICANN in June 2012, approximately 500 are due to reach the delegation phase which equates to integration in home territories. This estimation is an indication of the number of safeguards established by ICANN to filter applications.
In addition to ICANN’s examination structure and the objection procedures, candidates also have to face the scrutiny of the GAC1, the organization defending government interests at ICANN. By November 20 2012, 56 governments had issued 242 early warnings against 218 candidates, targeting amongst others the .sucks, .wtf and .vin. These warnings did not necessarily sound the death knell for the applicants targeted: candidates had the possibility of following advice from the GAC in order to modify their application.
Besides, more formal recommendations have also been made by the GAC – GAC Advices – concerning problematic extensions. This is particularly the case where an extension broaches a sensitive area or contravenes existing legislation.
The full list of GAC Advices was communicated on 11 April last year. Targeting over 500 applications, several categories of recommendations can be highlighted:
First of all, the GAC expressed formal opposition to the extensions .africa and .gcc (Gulf Cooperation Council)
Without reaching consensus, certain members of the GAC considered that extensions featuring religious terms (.halal, .islam) are targeting a sensitive issue.
For a series of extensions, the GAC recommends additional examination criteria before the application process may continue. Amongst others this would include the .date, .vin, .persiangulf or .thai.
ICANN had not considered that the question of singular/plural could cause confusion. The GAC recommends that ICANN change its stance on this point: such co-existence could lead to a risk of confusion amongst consumers. Such cases should be referred to the contention sets for a ruling to be made.
According to the GAC, three areas require particular attention: extensions classed as sensitive, consumer protection and regulated sectors. In this way certain families of extensions are under scrutiny, such as: intellectual property (.video, .app, .online, .zip, .movie, .radio), company identifiers (.corp, .inc., .sarl, .limited) or child protection (.kinder, .kids, .toys, .school, .games). To proceed, security measures must be imposed, in particular: the operator of the extension must include in the registration contract a clause confirming that the user will abide by the laws pertaining to the collection of personal data, consumer protection or financial information.
For certain categories, the GAC goes even further and requires the inclusion of other additional measures. This particularly applies to family extensions involving gambling (.bet, .casino, .poker), the environment (.eco, .organic, .earth) or health (.fitness, .doctor, .medical, .dental) for which the operator of such extensions will have to check official documents such as licenses or authorizations verifying that the operator has legitimate access to such extensions. Post agreement checks should even be made periodically to guarantee maximum security for Internet users.
Finally, the GAC shared its view on extensions whose registration will be limited or closed. For these groups of extensions, it seemed desirable to filter access to them, provided that the administration of the extension by the operator is carried out in an open and fair manner.
On the other hand, generic extensions (.theatre, .salon, .game, .baby, .beauty, .blog) closed to the general public must be administrated, according to the GAC, in the public interest.
On April 18 last year, ICANN gave formal notification to candidates concerned by a recommendation in the publication of the aforementioned GAC Advices. They then had 21 days in which to present their response to the American authority. In parallel to this, an invitation for public comments was opened by ICANN (from April 23 to May 14 2013). ICANN will take into account both candidates’ replies and public comments in its handling of the GAC Advices, without, however, being bound by their views.
Of the 500 extensions that should be integrated into home territories from this summer, over half (approximately 300) should be .marks with a closed and protected registration, the remainder being generic terms. A new landscape of domain names is looming on the horizon.
L’Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) est une organisation de droit privé à but non lucratif. Son personnel et ses participants viennent du monde entier. Elle est chargée d’allouer l’espace des adresses de protocole Internet (IP), d’attribuer les identificateurs de protocole, de gérer le système de nom de domaine de premier niveau pour les codes génériques (gTLD) et les codes nationaux (ccTLD), et d’assurer les fonctions de gestion du système de serveurs racines. Ces services étaient initialement assurés dans le cadre d’un contrat avec le gouvernement fédéral américain par l’Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (Iana) et d’autres organismes. L’ICANN assume à présent les fonctions de l’IANA.
En tant que partenariat public-privé, l’ICANN a pour mission de préserver la stabilité opérationnelle d’Internet, de promouvoir la concurrence, d’assurer une représentation globale des communautés Internet, et d’élaborer une politique correspondant à sa mission suivant une démarche consensuelle ascendante.
Opposition systems offer third parties the opportunity to oppose the registration of a trademark within a certain period of time provided by the applicable law.
An opposition must allege at least one of the grounds for opposition – either absolute or relative – among those that are recognized under the applicable law. Opposition procedures are closely related to the registration procedure. They may be part of the initial registration procedure (pre-registration opposition) or directly follow the completion of the registration process (post-registration opposition).
The Appellation of Origin is the term used to describe products which are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area with recognized expertise.
The Controlled Appellation of Origin (AOC) is a French term and describes products for which all steps of the production process are carried out in accordance with recognized expertise in a specific geographical area that gives the product its essential characteristics.
The Protected Appellation of Origin (AOP) is the European equivalent of AOC and protects product names throughout the European Union.
Arbitration is an Alternative Dispute Resolution process. It is the procedure by which parties in litigation decide by mutual agreement to submit their disputes (present or future) to one or more impartial and independent experts chosen for their qualifications and expertise in their sector.
The parties are bound by the decision made by the arbitrator or arbitration body.
ICANN has just revealed that the first new gTLD might be opened for registration in the very near future.
Registered to the root of the Internet as soon as the beginning of this summer, new gTLDs implementation should be followed by a Sunrise notice period from August 29th to September 27th this year, for trademarks owners.
ICANN created the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) so as to allow owners to exercise a better control over the registration of domain names incorporating trademarks. Indeed, once trademarks are registered in the TMCH database, owners benefit from the priority registration period – the Sunrise Period – and are notified when a third party registers identical or similar domain names.
As from now, Dreyfus, TMCH accredited agent, advices owners to register their trademarks in the TMCH Database so as to benefit from this great advantage before the Landrush and the General Availability periods.
As befits this digital era, I am pleased to announce the launch of Dreyfus new website.
More intuitive, the site offers you a detailed presentation of our services, our collaborators and our partners, providing a better understanding of our expertise to the various facets of Intellectual Property: Trademarks, Designs & Models, Patents, Domain Names, New gTLDs, Google Adwords and Social Networks, whilst also presenting a range of flexible, rapid and responsive tools.
Designed in a streamlined and accessible style, our new website is a showcase for the quality of the work we produce on a daily basis: cutting-edge, efficient services that specifically target the challenges faced by your company within a realistic price structure!
Our professionalism and pursuit of excellence have been recompensed by industry awards and we are regularly appraised as being one of the leading firms in Intellectual Property for the quality of our services.
As a further innovation, our internet site now provides direct access to the Dreyfus IPWeb® platform which aims to consolidate and summarize all the information that we make available to our clients. This applies both to the management and follow-up of our existing contracts as well as to our on-going administration.
Please, do not hesitate to send us your observations, suggestions or feedback: Dreyfus is always ready to listen to fresh ideas.
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.
On March 27 the European Commission presented a package of initiatives in order to make the trademark registration system throughout the European Union “cheaper, quicker, more reliable and predictable”(1).
