News

Introduction

The year 2026 marks a pivotal stage in the regulation and governance of artificial intelligence systems. After several years characterised by guiding principles and national strategies, AI law has now entered a phase of binding regulation, notably with the progressive implementation of the European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act).

At the same time, the widespread adoption of AI by businesses, particularly generative systems and autonomous agents, significantly increases legal, technical and reputational risks.

In this context, managing AI risks in 2026 requires moving beyond experimental approaches and implementing structured, documented governance aligned with international regulatory requirements.

A transformation of the AI regulatory framework in 2026

The global regulatory landscape for AI is no longer limited to recommendations or ethical principles; it is now based on binding legal obligations that apply on a large scale. The European Union, with the AI Act, is playing a leading role, but other jurisdictions such as China, the United States, South Korea, Australia, and Vietnam are following a similar path.

The year 2026 marks a decisive turning point, as the AI Act becomes fully enforceable particularly the provisions regarding high-risk AI systems and mechanisms such as regulatory sandboxes are implemented. This entry into force comes amid the growing use of AI in decisions that have a direct impact on individuals’ rights and access to essential services.

As a result, regulators consider that informal governance mechanisms are no longer sufficient to mitigate these risks.

The mandatory formalisation of risk management

Starting August 2, 2026, managing AI-related risks will become a core requirement for companies developing or using systems, particularly high-risk ones. These systems, deployed in sensitive areas (security, biometrics, medical devices, education), are subject to strict requirements.

The AI Act now requires companies presenting or developing products that incorporate high-risk AI systems to carry out:

• A prior risk assessment and a documented management system;
• CE marking and registration in the European database;
• Comprehensive technical documentation, ensuring transparency and traceability;
• Effective human oversight;
• Continuous monitoring, including logs, compliance checks, and requirements regarding robustness and cybersecurity

These obligations require integrating risk management throughout the entire lifecycle of the systems, from design through to operation.

This evolution also requires a redefinition of internal responsibilities, with closer collaboration between legal, technical and compliance teams.

Increased requirements for transparency and explainability

Transparency has become a central pillar of AI regulation. Authorities require that users be clearly informed when interacting with an AI system and that they can understand, at least broadly, how automated decisions are made.

An automated decision is a decision made, in whole or in part, by an algorithmic system without direct human intervention, based on data and predictive models. Automated decisions must be explainable, particularly in sensitive sectors. This requirement aligns with the GDPR’s principles regarding transparency and the right to information.

The AI Act also imposes obligations regarding the identification of AI-generated content. Users must be able to determine whether content has been generated by AI, particularly in the case of AI-generated text, images, or videos. In this regard, the European AI Office offers a voluntary code of best practices designed to support the implementation of these obligations.

This evolution requires companies to integrate transparency from the design phase (“transparency by design”). These obligations go beyond formal disclosures and involve a genuine effort to ensure user understanding and decision intelligibility.

Stronger requirements for security and user protection in AI systems

The safety of AI systems is an increasingly prominent regulatory priority. Risks related to algorithmic bias, discrimination and exposure of vulnerable users, particularly minors, are subject to heightened scrutiny.

Regulators have already demonstrated, since 2025, their willingness to intervene where AI systems generate inappropriate content or pose risks to users. This trend is reinforced in 2026 with the the adoption of new regulations in many jurisdictions requiring specific obligations to prevent harmful or manipulative content.

Furthermore, risks related to deepfakes and synthetic content represent a major concern. These technologies may be used for fraud, harassment or privacy violations, prompting several jurisdictions to consider targeted regulation.

In this context, companies must integrate “safety by design” principles, including bias testing, use-case restrictions and enhanced control over generated content.

Ongoing intellectual property challenges

Intellectual property remains a central issue in AI-related legal debates. Litigation concerning the use of protected content to train AI models is increasing, revealing divergent approaches across jurisdictions.

Some recent decisions have recognized that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works may constitute copyright infringement, as in the German case GEMA v. OpenAI of November 11, 2025, in which the Munich court held that training models using copyrighted song lyrics without a license was unlawful.

Conversely, other jurisdictions take a more restrictive approach: in the case of Getty Images v. Stability AI on November 4, 2025, the High Court of Justice in London held that a model that does not contain copyrighted works in a recognizable form cannot be considered an unauthorized reproduction, thereby highlighting the decisive role of technical analysis and territorial context.

For more information on the Getty Images v. Stability AI decision, we invite you to read our previously published article.

This legal uncertainty requires companies to secure their practices, particularly regarding training data, licensing strategies and control of generated outputs. Beyond litigation risks, these issues also concern the valuation of intangible assets and the protection of innovation.

Conclusion

Managing AI risks in 2026 requires a fundamental transformation of business practices, integrating legal, technical and ethical requirements into a comprehensive and structured approach.

The growing complexity of technologies, combined with increasing regulatory obligations, demands constant vigilance and proactive risk management.

Dreyfus & Associates assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A :

Is the AI Act mandatory for all companies?
Yes, if a company develops, markets, or uses an AI system that has an impact within the EU. However, obligations vary depending on the level of risk and are much stricter for high-risk systems.

Are AI training datasets regulated?
Yes. They must comply with GDPR principles (lawfulness, transparency, purpose limitation) and, where applicable, copyright law. Companies must be able to justify the origin and use of the data.

How can risks related to deepfakes and AI-generated content be mitigated?
By combining detection tools, traceability mechanisms, and strict internal policies to control usage and prevent the spread of misleading content.

Why should companies act now?
Because the rules are coming into force and enforcement is increasing. Acting early helps reduce legal risks and build trust.

What are the risks of non-compliance?
Companies face significant fines, product bans or withdrawals, and potential litigation. Reputational damage can also be immediate, especially in cases of controversial AI use.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

In an economic environment where company value increasingly relies on intangible assets, the question of whether investment funds should own trademark rights has become particularly relevant. Long perceived as mere marketing tools, trademarks are now recognized as structuring legal and financial assets, capable of directly influencing valuation, risk mitigation, and investment profitability.

In our practice, we observe that many transactions fail or suffer significant value reductions due to inadequate management of industrial property rights, particularly trademarks. Conversely, a strong and well-structured trademark portfolio can transform a conventional investment into a high-potential strategic asset.

Accordingly, it is necessary to assess the true role of trademark rights within investment fund strategies. Are they merely protective tools, or do they constitute a fundamental driver of value creation ?

Trademark rights as essential strategic assets

For investment funds, holding or controlling trademarks is no longer simply a legal matter, but a genuine strategy for securing and enhancing investments.

Trademark law grants an exclusive right to use a distinctive sign, enabling the identification of the origin of goods or services and ensuring their uniqueness in the marketplace. This exclusivity serves as a key differentiation tool, particularly in highly competitive sectors. It protects the reputation of the target company while preventing third-party misappropriation.

From an investment perspective, trademarks thus become structural assets. They embody not only the commercial identity of a company but also its perceived value. A company lacking strong trademark protection presents an immediate legal risk that may jeopardize its operations and, consequently, the profitability of the investment.

The impact of trademarks on investment valuation and profitability

Trademark ownership directly affects company valuation, both at entry and exit stages. During acquisition processes, the existence of a secure trademark portfolio is an indicator of maturity and stability. It reassures investors and facilitates negotiations by reducing legal uncertainty.

Conversely, the absence of protection or the existence of potential trademark disputes may lead to a significant revision of the purchase price or even the abandonment of the transaction altogether. In this context, trademarks act as a crucial analytical filter during due diligence.

Beyond risk mitigation, trademarks also offer independent revenue-generating opportunities. They can be exploited separately from the core business, particularly through contractual arrangements such as licenses or commercial partnerships. This ability to generate indirect income gives trademarks a particularly attractive asset dimension for investment funds.

At the exit stage, the value of a trademark portfolio becomes a decisive factor. A strong, well-known, and legally protected trademark enhances company valuation and attracts strategic buyers. It reduces perceived risks and facilitates the successful completion of transactions.

For further insight into the impact of trademarks on company valuation, we invite you to consult our previously published article.

Legal requirements and compliance issues related to trademarks

Holding trademark rights requires rigorous and continuous management. Unlike other assets, a trademark is not acquired permanently. It must be used, monitored, and renewed to remain valid.

Periodic renewal is an essential obligation. Failure to comply results in the loss of rights and opens the door to third-party appropriation. Such a situation may have significant financial consequences for an investment fund, particularly where brand value is critical.

In addition, monitoring infringements is a strategic necessity. Risks of counterfeiting, imitation, or cybersquatting are particularly high in a global digital environment. Funds must be able to detect such infringements promptly and respond effectively, whether through litigation or specific administrative procedures such as the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Trademark protection must also be considered in light of digital challenges. Domain names, online platforms, and social media represent major points of vulnerability. A lack of coordination between trademark strategy and digital strategy exposes companies to increased risks of identity theft and fraud.

Strategies for managing and optimizing trademark portfolios

A strategic approach to trademark rights requires early integration of intellectual property into the investment process. Prior audits of intangible assets help identify risks and anticipate necessary corrective actions. This step is essential to secure transactions and optimize asset valuation.

The structuring of trademark portfolios is also a key optimization tool. A coherent strategy tailored to target markets maximizes protection while controlling costs. Centralizing rights within dedicated structures may also facilitate management and create tax optimization opportunities.

From an operational perspective, trademark management requires the involvement of specialized experts capable of ensuring ongoing monitoring and implementing appropriate enforcement strategies. Support from intellectual property professionals enables the transformation of a legal asset into a true value-creation tool.

Conclusion

Trademark law is now a fundamental component of investment fund strategy. It secures assets, enhances their value, and generates additional revenue streams. Its role goes far beyond mere legal protection, forming part of a broader framework of performance and competitiveness.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of specialized intellectual property lawyers.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. Can an investment fund record a trademark as an asset on its balance sheet ?
Yes, a trademark may be recognized as an intangible asset if it is identifiable and expected to generate future economic benefits. Its valuation often requires specific methodologies and may be subject to audit.

2. What is the difference between a registered trademark and a trade name ?
A trademark grants an exclusive legal right, whereas a trade name serves to identify the business. Their legal scope and protection mechanisms differ significantly.

3. Can a trademark be transferred independently from a company ?
Yes, a trademark can be assigned separately from the business. This flexibility allows for strategic asset management and value optimization.

4. What are the costs associated with international trademark registration ?
Costs vary depending on jurisdictions and filing systems. They include official fees, professional fees, and ongoing maintenance costs.

5. Can a trademark be challenged after registration ?
Yes, a trademark may be subject to opposition, invalidity, or revocation proceedings. Its validity depends on distinctiveness and genuine use.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The decision ruled by the Commercial Chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) on January 28, 2026 (No. 24-14.760) marks a decisive milestone in the evolution of French trademark law. By confirming the non-applicability of any limitation period to invalidity actions for all trademarks in force at the time of the PACTE Law, the Court brings an end to several years of legal uncertainty.

This ruling goes beyond a purely technical clarification: it fundamentally reshapes the legal security of industrial property rights and the litigation strategies of businesses.

The introduction of the non-applicability of limitation periods by the PACTE Law

The PACTE Law (Law No. 2019-486 of May 22, 2019) profoundly transformed French trademark law by introducing a now fundamental principle: invalidity actions are not subject to any limitation period.

This principle, codified in Article L.716-2-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code, is grounded in a simple but essential rationale: a trademark that does not meet the legal requirements for validity should never be allowed to produce lasting legal effects.

This reform aligns French law with European Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trademark, which also allows for invalidity actions without time limitation in certain circumstances.

Prior to this reform, invalidity actions were subject in practice to the ordinary five-year limitation period set out in Article 2224 of the French Civil Code, which often resulted in the consolidation of legally questionable situations. The PACTE Law departs from this approach by prioritizing the intrinsic validity of registered rights.

The January 28, 2026 decision: a clear and structuring solution

However, a major uncertainty remained: does this absence of limitation period apply to trademarks filed before 2019?

In its decision of January 28, 2026, the French Supreme Court provides a clear and unequivocal answer. It states that the absence of any limitation period applies to all trademarks in force as of May 24, 2019, regardless of their filing date and even where the invalidity action would previously have been time-barred.

This ruling has several major consequences:

• invalidity actions may now be brought against old trademarks, even those actively in use;
• limitation periods acquired under prior law no longer constitute a procedural obstacle;
• only situations definitively settled by a final court decision (res judicata) remain protected.

The Court thus adopts an immediate and broad interpretation of the reform, prioritizing the consistency of the legal system over the stability of previously acquired situations.

Immediate effect in the interest of trademark validity

One of the most significant contributions of the decision lies in recognizing the immediate effect of the new law on ongoing situations, including those that appeared definitively settled.

This approach may seem at odds with traditional civil law principles, which generally protect acquired limitation periods. However, the Court justifies this position by emphasizing the specific nature of trademark law.

The trademark register is intended to reflect valid and enforceable rights. Therefore:

• maintaining invalid trademarks solely due to the passage of time would be contrary to legal order;
• the public interest justifies allowing such trademarks to be challenged at any time.

This reasoning aligns with a broader European objective of ensuring uniformity and coherence in trademark law across the internal market.

Practical implications for rights holders

A strategic opportunity for prior rights holders

Businesses now benefit from a powerful legal tool. They may:

• challenge longstanding trademarks, even after many years of use;
• rely on various grounds, including bad faith at the time of filing;
• revive disputes previously considered definitively time-barred.

For instance, a company discovering in 2026 that a competitor is using a trademark filed in 2010 in violation of its prior rights may now initiate invalidity proceedings, even though such action would previously have been inadmissible.

Increased legal uncertainty for trademark owners

Conversely, this decision weakens the position of trademark proprietors. Their rights may now be challenged:

• without any time limitation;
• regardless of how long the trademark has been in use.

This situation calls for a structured and proactive approach, including in particular:

• regular audits of trademark portfolios;
• securing trademark filings from a legal standpoint;
• anticipation of potential litigation risks.

Conclusion

Through its decision of January 28, 2026, the French Supreme Court definitively establishes a cornerstone principle of trademark law: the non-applicability of limitation periods to invalidity actions, applicable to all trademarks in force at the time of the PACTE Law’s entry into force.

This ruling fully aligns French law with European Union law and reinforces the requirement that industrial property rights must be intrinsically valid. At the same time, a profound shift in corporate legal strategies is needed.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in handling complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure full protection of their IP rights.

Dreyfus & Associés is partnered with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

Does the absence of a limitation period mean there are no time constraints at all?
Not entirely. While time limitation no longer applies, other mechanisms such as acquiescence or specific statutory regimes may still restrict the ability to act (for instance for well-known trademarks). A comprehensive and strategic analysis remains essential.

Can all past disputes now be reopened?
No. The Supreme Court has set a clear boundary: cases that have been finally adjudicated (res judicata) remain unaffected. Only unresolved or pending matters may benefit from the new regime.

Will trademark litigation become more frequent?

This decision is likely to increase invalidity actions. The removal of time barriers creates new litigation opportunities, particularly in sectors where longstanding conflicts remained unchallenged.

Is French law now fully aligned with EU trademark law?
The alignment is now very strong. However, certain national procedural specificities remain, requiring a coordinated approach between French and EU law.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The monetization of university lecture notes through digital platforms has become a widespread phenomenon in higher education. Specialized websites now offer thousands of educational materials uploaded by students: revision notes, structured summaries, course outlines, or detailed transcriptions of lectures.

Presented as a tool for academic collaboration and easier access to educational resources, this practice nonetheless raises a major legal question: does selling professors’ lectures constitute a legitimate student practice, or a form of disguised infringement?

Under French intellectual property law, the answer depends primarily on a decisive criterion: the originality of the lecture and the nature of its reproduction by the student. Legal analysis reveals a delicate balance between the dissemination of knowledge, academic freedom, and the protection of intellectual creations.

Reselling lecture notes: a phenomenon amplified by digital platforms

With the digitalization of higher education, numerous platforms (Studocu, Stuvia, Course Hero, OneClass) allow students to share or sell their lecture notes. These platforms function as collaborative academic libraries. Users can access content free of charge or via subscription, while contributing students may receive financial benefits or privileged access to the database.

This model is based on a simple principle: students upload their documents, which then become accessible to an international community. The materials may include personal summaries, methodological guides, but also very detailed notes reproducing the content of lectures.

This practice reflects a form of collaborative knowledge economy. However, it has drawn strong criticism from lecturers and universities, who sometimes consider that these platforms indirectly exploit their pedagogical work.

Many lecturers believe that the online dissemination of their lectures, sometimes in near-complete form, constitutes an unjustified appropriation of their intellectual work. Some institutions also fear losing control over the distribution of their educational content.

The legal framework applicable to university lectures

Under French law, copyright protection applies to works of the mind, i.e., intellectual creations bearing the imprint of their author’s personality.

Article L112-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code explicitly provides that lectures may be protected under copyright law.

A decision of the Lyon Judicial Court dated September 10, 2024 further confirmed that university lectures (both oral and supporting materials) may be protected by copyright if they are original.

Originality may be reflected in various elements, including the pedagogical structure of the lecture, the organization of ideas, the selection and arrangement of information, or the particular manner in which knowledge is presented. However, ideas, concepts, and scientific knowledge are not protected as such; only their original expression may be.

This principle is consistently upheld by case law. In the “Paradis” decision of November 13, 2008, the French Supreme Court reaffirmed that while ideas are free for all to use, their material expression, resulting from aesthetic choices and a particular arrangement, may be protected under copyright.

This position has also been confirmed in relation to educational materials (Paris, 4th Chamber, Nov. 21, 1994), lectures (Paris, 1st Chamber, Nov. 24, 1992), and in particular law lectures (Paris, 4th Chamber, Feb. 21, 1978).

Knowledge conveyed in a lecture hall belongs to the public domain of knowledge, but the way in which a lecturer chooses to present it may constitute a protected work.

This distinction explains why not all university lectures are automatically protected, although some clearly fall within the scope of copyright.

Can selling lecture notes constitute infringement?

When a student uploads or sells lecture notes, the legal classification depends on how those notes were prepared. If the notes constitute a faithful transcription of the lecturer’s content, or even a word-for-word reproduction of their speech or teaching materials, they may be considered an unauthorized reproduction of a protected work.

In such cases, the dissemination or commercialization of these materials may constitute infringement. Infringement is an offense that may give rise to both civil and criminal liability. The lecturer whose course has been reproduced without authorization may seek compensation for the harm suffered.

The commercial dimension generally increases the seriousness of the infringement, as the economic exploitation of a protected work is, in principle, reserved exclusively to its author.

Conversely, not all lecture notes necessarily infringe copyright. A student who produces a personal summary, reformulation, or pedagogical analysis of a lecture may be considered the author of a new or composite work.

Article L113-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code defines a composite work as “a new work in which a pre-existing work is incorporated without the collaboration of the author of the latter.”

Thus, a composite work is characterized by the creation of a new work based on a prior work, incorporating an original contribution by its author. This originality must lie in transformations or creative choices reflecting genuine intellectual input.

In a decision dated October 24, 1995, the French Supreme Court held that a substantial and original modification of a pre-existing work may give rise to a composite work, which benefits from independent copyright protection.

In such cases, the notes may reflect the student’s own intellectual organization, presentation choices, or method of synthesis. The resulting creation may then be distinct from the lecturer’s original work.

However, the boundary between personal synthesis and unlawful reproduction may be difficult to determine. Where notes replicate the exact structure of the lecture or reproduce entire passages, the characterization of infringement may again become relevant.

The legal liability of lecture-sharing platforms

Platforms that allow students to publish their lecture notes are generally considered hosting providers under the French Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN).

This status grants them limited liability. In principle, they are not responsible for content published by their users. However, this immunity is not absolute.

When a platform is informed of the presence of manifestly unlawful content, it must act promptly to remove it. If it fails to take action after notification, its liability may be engaged.

Some platforms argue that students create their own notes and therefore hold rights over these documents. They also maintain that the knowledge conveyed in lectures belongs to the public domain.

However, this argument may be rejected where the materials reproduce the original form of the lecture. In such cases, copyright protection remains applicable.

A still limited legal response to an international phenomenon

Most platforms specializing in the resale of lecture notes are located outside France. This international dimension makes legal action more complex, particularly due to differences in legislation and the territorial nature of copyright.

Lecturers or universities seeking to act against these platforms often face lengthy and costly cross-border proceedings.

In response, some universities may adopt internal policies regulating the dissemination of educational content. Codes of conduct or disciplinary rules may explicitly prohibit the distribution or commercialization of course materials without authorization.

At the same time, raising students’ awareness of copyright issues appears essential to limit potentially unlawful practices.

Conclusion

The resale of lecture notes now lies at the intersection between collaborative student practice and unlawful exploitation of pedagogical works. The legal qualification primarily depends on the nature of the material and the degree to which it reproduces the original lecture.

In the digital era and in the context of international platforms, this issue highlights the growing importance of protecting educational content and intellectual property in higher education.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of specialized intellectual property lawyers.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Can a student be prosecuted even if they earned very little money from selling their notes?
Yes. In copyright infringement matters, the amount of profit is not decisive. Even free dissemination or minimal gain may constitute unauthorized exploitation if the original lecture is reproduced.

2. Can teaching materials provided by a lecturer (slides, handouts) be freely shared online?
In principle, no. These materials are generally protected by copyright, and their public dissemination requires authorization from their author or the educational institution.

3. Can a student use excerpts from lectures in a thesis or academic work?
Yes, under certain conditions. The right of quotation allows the use of short excerpts, provided the source is cited and the use is justified by a pedagogical, critical, or scientific purpose.

4. Does the lecturer retain rights over a course taught in a public university?
As a general rule, lecturers retain copyright over their teaching materials, subject to certain exceptions linked to specific duties or contractual provisions.

5. Can platforms be required to remove lecture materials upon request from a lecturer?
Yes. A lecturer may submit a takedown notice based on copyright. If the platform fails to promptly remove the disputed content after notification, its liability may be engaged.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The “.fr” domain name is experiencing a significant resurgence, driven by growing concerns around digital sovereignty, trust, and the control of intangible assets. Long overshadowed by generic extensions, it is now emerging as a strategic choice for French companies seeking to secure their online presence.

Supported by a structured legal framework, national governance, and effective enforcement mechanisms, the “.fr” provides a reliable and protective environment.

“.fr” as a symbol of renewed digital sovereignty

A national extension with strategic importance

The “.fr”, France’s historical extension, is now part of a broader movement toward reclaiming control over digital infrastructure. This shift is driven by:

• Increasing dependence on international platforms
• Risks of unilateral changes in access or visibility rules
• Exposure to foreign jurisdictions

The domain name thus becomes a strategic and autonomous asset, largely independent from the constraints imposed by global tech players.

A stronger perception of reliability and proximity

The “.fr” benefits from a decisive advantage in that it is immediately identifiable as a local, reliable, and secure extension.

This perception is based, on the one hand, on its strong territorial anchoring, which allows users to naturally associate the website with an entity established in France, and, on the other hand, on its compliance with French and European regulatory frameworks, particularly regarding data protection and transparency.

In addition, it offers greater clarity for consumers, who can more easily identify the origin of the service, thereby reinforcing trust and user engagement.

Widespread adoption by French businesses

Recent figures reflect a clear shift: nearly two-thirds of SMEs now prioritize the “.fr”, compared to about one-third for “.com”. This trend highlights :

• A growing strategic awareness
• A desire to reduce dependence on foreign actors
• An increased need for credibility with customers

The “.fr” is therefore becoming a national standard of trust, moving beyond its former role as a secondary extension.

A protective legal framework strengthened by effective mechanisms

Syreli: a fast and efficient procedure

The Syreli procedure, implemented by AFNIC, enables efficient challenges against “.fr” domain names. It is characterized by:

• A short timeframe (around two months)
• A fully online process
• Controlled costs

It is particularly effective in addressing clear cases of rights infringement.

PARL EXPERT: a more in-depth expert approach

The Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure (PARL EXPERT) relies on independent experts and is suited to more complex disputes involving:

• Detailed legal analysis
• Consideration of economic stakes
• Greater procedural flexibility

To learn more about domain name disputes, we invite you to consult our previously published guide.

Case law offering stronger protection for rights holders

The trends observed in Syreli and PARL EXPERT proceedings, as highlighted in AFNIC’s annual reports, reflect stronger protection for rights holders. A review of the decisions issued shows a growing consistency in the application of these principles, pointing to the gradual consolidation of the legal framework governing “.fr” domain names.

First, acts of cybersquatting are being sanctioned more and more systematically where there is a likelihood of confusion, unfair exploitation of reputation, or evidence of bad faith. Bad faith is assessed on the basis of specific indicators, such as the registrant’s passivity or the redirection of the domain name to competing content.

Second, protection is no longer limited to the mere reproduction of a registered trademark. Decisions now reflect a broader approach to prior rights, extending in particular to company names, provided that a likelihood of confusion is established.

Lastly, AFNIC’s figures confirm the operational effectiveness of these dispute-resolution mechanisms. Since its creation in 2011, more than 3,000 Syreli decisions have been issued, with an increase of over 75% between 2012 and 2024. In 2024, nearly 87% of decisions resulted in the transfer of the domain name to the claimant, illustrating the concrete effectiveness of the system for the benefit of rights holders.

In this context, the “.fr” stands out as a structured, responsive, and protective legal framework, meeting companies’ needs in securing their digital identity.

“.fr” as a response to changes in the web and the rise of AI

Digital visibility reshaped by new online uses

Changes in online practices, particularly with the development of generative AI, are altering the way internet users access information by reducing the direct visibility of domain names within browsing paths.

Without eliminating their role, this development creates a risk of reduced visibility for traditional websites, to the benefit of intermediary interfaces such as search engines, assistants, and platforms.

Even so, domain names remain essential: they constitute the primary source of the content used by artificial intelligence systems.

In this context, domain names continue to serve an important function as a point of identification, credibility, and long-term anchoring for businesses.

“.fr” as a guarantee of digital resilience

In response to these changes, the “.fr” offers:

• Legal stability
• Strategic independence
• Greater resilience in the face of technological developments

It is becoming an essential tool for businesses seeking to secure their visibility and digital identity.

Domain name monitoring: an essential reflex

In this context, merely owning a domain name is no longer enough. Proactive domain name monitoring has become a natural extension of digital sovereignty.

The renewal of the agreement between AFNIC and INPI, aimed at raising entrepreneurs’ awareness of the importance of protecting their intangible assets from the outset through the combined registration of a trademark and a domain name, confirms this direction. It encourages rights holders to implement proactive monitoring in order to detect fraudulent registrations quickly and to activate the appropriate procedures without delay.

Such vigilance makes it possible to:

• Promptly identify infringements affecting trademarks and domain names
• Anticipate cybersquatting practices
• Secure digital identity over the long term

Monitoring therefore forms part of a broader strategy for protecting intangible assets, which is essential to preserving a company’s value and credibility in an ever-evolving digital environment.

Conclusion

The “.fr” has evolved beyond its purely technical function to become a genuine instrument of digital sovereignty, combining trust, legal certainty, and strategic autonomy. Its increasing adoption by French companies reflects a deeper transformation in digital practices, with a growing emphasis on control, security, and the protection of intangible assets.

In a landscape shaped by technological developments and the rise of artificial intelligence, the “.fr” remains a structuring asset, ensuring credibility, visibility, and long-term stability, while fully integrating into a comprehensive intellectual property strategy.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Who can register a “.fr” domain name?
Any individual or legal entity may register a “.fr” domain name, provided they reside or are established within the European Union.

2. Is “.fr” suitable for international strategies?
Yes, it can complement other extensions while strengthening local presence and brand security.

3. How can a “.fr” domain name be effectively protected?
By registering strategic variants, securing trademark rights, monitoring registrations, and acting quickly via Syreli or PARL when needed.

4. How can domain names be monitored?
Through specialized monitoring services that detect potentially infringing registrations.

5. What is the difference between UDRP and Syreli?
UDRP applies mainly to generic domains (.com), while Syreli is specific to “.fr” and generally faster.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The priority rule in  trademark law is a fundamental mechanism within the international trademark protection system. It allows an applicant who has filed a first trademark application in one country to claim that filing date for a subsequent application in another territory, particularly for a European Union trademark (EUTM).

This mechanism enables applicants to obtain retroactive protection, preventing third parties from acquiring rights between two successive filings. However, recent case law from the General Court of the European Union reminds us that this rule must be applied strictly.

The Coloratura ruling (Capella v EUIPO, General Court of the European Union, 8 October 2025, T-562/24) is a particularly significant decision in this regard. It clarifies the limits of the concept of the “first application” and reiterates that the priority system cannot be used to artificially extend trademark protection.

The priority rule in trademark law: definition and legal framework

The right of priority originates from the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which enables applicants to organize the international expansion of their trademarks.

Under this principle, anyone who has filed a trademark application in a Convention member state benefits from a six-month period to file the same trademark in other countries while retaining the date of the first filing. This mechanism facilitates the international protection of trademarks while giving trademark owners time to evaluate their expansion strategy.

Within the European Union, this right is governed by Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trademark. This provision allows applicants to claim the priority of an earlier application when filing a European Union trademark application before the EUIPO.

Where priority is validly claimed, the EU trademark is deemed to have been filed on the date of the first national filing. Consequently, any application filed by a competitor during that period becomes legally ineffective against the earlier rights.

Legal conditions for claiming priority in trademark law

Claiming priority is subject to several cumulative conditions :

• First, the trademark claiming priority must be strictly identical to the trademark filed in the initial application. Any substantial modification may result in the loss of priority.
• Second, priority applies only to the goods or services covered by the first application. If the subsequent application includes additional goods or services, those additional elements will not benefit from priority.
• Third, the deadline to file a trademark under priority is strictly limited to six months. In principle, this period cannot be extended, which requires careful strategic planning when organizing international trademark filings.
• Finally, the applicant must provide supporting documentation, including a certified copy of the first application and, where necessary, a translation. These documents enable the EUIPO to verify the validity of the priority claim.

The Coloratura ruling: a major clarification of the concept of “first application”

Background of the case

The Coloratura case has become an important reference for interpreting the priority rule in EU trademark law.

In this case, the company Capella filed several German national trademark applications for the trademark “Coloratura” between February and September 2017. It subsequently filed an EU trademark application on March 30, 2018, claiming priority from a German application filed in September 2017.

However, in the meantime, Richemont had filed a similar trademark in Germany on March 9, 2018 and filed an opposition against Capella’s EU trademark application.

This issue was decisive in the pending opposition proceedings, since recognition of that priority claim would have enabled Capella to rely on a filing date earlier than that of the trademark relied upon by Richemont and, accordingly, to defeat the earlier right asserted in opposition. Capella therefore maintained that priority could validly be claimed on the basis of that September 2017 application, whereas Richemont argued that the true first application was in fact the one filed in February 2017.The decision of the General Court of the European Union

The General Court confirmed the analysis of the EUIPO. According to the Court, the application filed in February 2017 had to be regarded as the true first application to be taken into account for the purpose of claiming priority, as it had been published and had produced legal effects.

The Court emphasized that accepting Capella’s argument would allow applicants to extend the priority period indefinitely by repeatedly filing new applications, with each new filing triggering a fresh six-month priority period. Such a practice would undermine the purpose of the priority system, which seeks to balance the protection of applicants with legal certainty and fair competition.

Nevertheless, the Court recalled that in very limited circumstances a later application may exceptionally be considered the “first application”, as provided for in Article 34(4) of the EU Trademark Regulation, which establishes a narrow exception to the general rule.

For this exception to apply, several strict cumulative conditions must be satisfied:

• the earlier application must have been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused;
• it must not have been made available for public inspection;
• it must not have given rise to any surviving rights;
• and it must not have served as the basis for a priority claim.

In the Coloratura case, these conditions were not met. Because the February 2017 application had been published, it necessarily constituted the first application. As a result, the priority period had already expired when the EU trademark application was filed, depriving Capella of any right to claim priority.

Conclusion

The priority rule in trademark law remains an essential tool for companies seeking to develop their trademarks internationally. It allows businesses to balance strategic flexibility with legal certainty by providing a six-month period to organize the territorial extension of a trademark filing.

However, the Coloratura judgment clearly demonstrates that this mechanism must be used strictly within its intended purpose: enabling the international expansion of a trademark rather than creating artificial strategies to extend legal protection.

A rigorous trademark filing strategy combined with careful anticipation of target markets therefore remains essential for securing an effective trademark portfolio.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. Does the priority rule also apply to designs or patents?

Yes, the priority rule is not limited to trademarks. It also applies to patents, industrial designsunder similar rules provided by the Paris Convention.

2. Does claiming priority affect the duration of trademark protection?

No, the duration of protection for an EU trademark remains ten years from the filing date of the EU application, even if priority has been claimed. Priority affects only the legal seniority of the trademark, not its duration.

3. Can priority be claimed from an application filed in any country?

Priority can be claimed from an application filed in a country that is a member of the Paris Convention or the World Trade Organization (WTO). This means the first filing may originate from a wide range of jurisdictions worldwide.

4. Can multiple filings be used to extend the priority period?

No, European case law, including the Coloratura ruling, clearly confirms that the priority mechanism cannot be misused to artificially extend priority periods through successive filings.

5. Does priority apply to all goods and services in a later application?

No, priority applies only to the goods and services covered by the original application.

This publication is intended to provide general information to the public and to highlight certain legal issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

With the digital transformation of businesses, several signs may now be used to identify a company: the company name, the trademark, the trade name, and the domain name. These concepts are frequently confused, although they operate under distinct legal frameworks.

In practice, many business owners believe that reserving a domain name automatically grants them exclusive rights over a name. However, these various signs do not follow the same rules regarding creation, attribution, and protection.

Understanding the distinction between these two concepts is essential in order to avoid disputes relating to prior rights, unfair competition, or cybersquatting.

Although a company’s name and a domain name may be identical, they are governed by different legal regimes and do not benefit from the same level of protection.

What is a company name?

The company name is the official name of a legal entity. It allows a company to be identified in legal terms, like a family name identifies a natural person.

In France, a company’s name is chosen when the company is incorporated and is included in its articles of incorporation. In practice, protection of this distinctive sign takes effect upon the company’s registration in the National Business Register, which confers legal personality on the company. Case law thus recognizes that the corporate name constitutes a distinctive sign protected against the risk of confusion (for example: Cass. com., March 12, 1985, No. 84-17.163).

The company name must also be used in the company’s legal and business dealings. It therefore appears on contracts, invoices, administrative and commercial documents, as well as in the website’s legal notices.

It is important to distinguish the corporate name from other related concepts:

 A trade name is the name used in business to identify a business entity. A trade name may differ from the company’s corporate name and, as such, constitutes a distinctive mark used in commercial transactions.

 A store sign is a visible identifier that allows the public to recognize a business, such as the name displayed on the front of a store or restaurant

What is a domain name?

A domain name is the address used to access a website. It typically consists of a name followed by a domain extension, such as .fr, .eu, or .com.

Today, this name plays a strategic role, as it determines a company’s online visibility and contributes to its digital identity.

Unlike a company name, a domain name is not assigned by a legal authority but by technical organizations responsible for managing internet domain extensions. At the international level, ICANN coordinates the domain name system and accredits registrars that sell and register domain names on behalf of users.

The management of the various domain extensions is handled by national or regional domain name registries.

– The .fr extension is administered by AFNIC,
– The .eu extension is managed by EURid.

Obtaining a domain name is based on a simple principle: first come, first served. Any operator may register an available domain name through an accredited registrar and subsequently renew the registration annually upon payment of the applicable fees.

When a domain name is registered, no systematic verification of prior rights is carried out. Consequently, it is technically possible to register a domain name that infringes an existing company name.

The main legal differences

The first difference concerns the legal nature of these two signs.

• The company name is an element of company law used to formally identify a legal entity.

• The domain name was originally a technical address allowing access to a website on the global Internet.

However, practice increasingly recognise its economic and distinctive function.

The method of acquisition also differs. The company name arises upon the company’s registration in the National Register of Companies whereas a domain name is obtained simply by reserving it through a registrar.

The legal protection regime also varies.

• The company name generally benefits from protection throughout the national territory, provided that there is a risk of confusion with the activity of another undertaking.

• A domain name, by contrast, does not in itself confer an exclusive right comparable to that of a trademark or company name, nor does it benefit from a specific territorial protection regime. It primarily constitutes a unique technical address within a given extension, allowing access to a website.

This address may be visible worldwide.

Finally, their economic function differs. The company name serves to legally identify a company. The domain name primarily constitutes a technical address enabling access to a website, although it may also contribute to identifying an economic activity on the Internet.

Frequent conflicts between company names and domain names

Conflicts generally arise when several parties claim rights over the same sign. They may occur when a domain name infringes a prior company name. In such cases, courts assess in particular whether there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public, taking into account the priority of the sign, the field of activity, and the conditions under which the disputed domain name is used.

Under French law, such disputes may notably be based on unfair competition, pursuant to Article 1240 of the French Civil Code.

Furthermore, Article L.45-2 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code provides that the registration or use of a domain name must not infringe the rights of third parties. On this basis, alternative dispute resolution procedures have been established for .fr domain names, including the SYRELI procedure managed by AFNIC.

This procedure may result in the deletion or transfer of a domain name when it infringes prior rights.
Although the company name is not expressly mentioned in this provision, it may nonetheless be invoked as a prior right in these procedures or before judicial courts.

At the European Union level, certain disputes relating to domain names are subject to specific regulation. The .eu extension is governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/517, and disputes may be resolved through an alternative dispute resolution procedure administered notably by the Czech Arbitration Court.

Conclusion

The company name and the domain name pursue different but complementary objectives. These two elements may be identical, but they are governed by different legal regimes and benefit from different levels of protection.

In a highly digitalised economic environment, it is therefore essential to adopt a coherent strategy combining company law considerations with domain name management in order to effectively secure a company’s identity over the long term.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

Can a company use a domain name different from its company name?
A company is not required to use its corporate name as its domain name. It may choose a name that is shorter, more commercial, or better suited to its online activities.

Can a domain name be reserved before the company is created?
Yes. It is possible to reserve a domain name before incorporating a company. This practice is common in order to secure a digital identity prior to the company’s registration.

Should the existence of a trademark be checked before reserving a domain name?
This is strongly recommended. A domain name may infringe a prior trademark, which could lead to a trademark counterfeiting action or the transfer of the domain name.

Can a company own multiple domain names?
Absolutely, a company may register several domain names in order to protect its digital identity or redirect users to the same website.

Can domain names be seized or included in insolvency proceedings?
Yes, as an intangible asset, a domain name may form part of a company’s assets and may therefore be transferred or seized.