Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
Contact

News

The new European Design reform: Key changes and strategic insights for rights holders

Written by Antony09/04/2025

The reform of the European design law, introduced through Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823, marks a significant evolution in industrial design protection. With implementation beginning on May 1, 2025, and full transposition required by December 9, 2027, the reform redefines core aspects of how designs are protected, enforced, and managed across the EU.

This article provides a comprehensive breakdown of the key provisions and their practical implications for rights holders, businesses, and legal practitioners.

Summary of the reform and its strategic impact

The new EU legal framework introduces:

  • Modernized definitions reflecting digital and animated designs
  • Expanded procedural flexibility (multi-design filings, deferment)
  • Enhanced enforcement tools for both physical and digital infringements
  • Harmonized grounds for refusal and invalidity
  • Rebalanced fees that benefit SMEs but impact long-cycle industries
  • Clear ownership rules aligned with employment law
  • Legal clarity on unregistered designs and repair clause use

Rights holders are advised to audit their design portfolios, revise employment agreements, and reconsider filing strategies to optimize protection under the new regime.

Key dates and implementation timeline

  • May 1, 2025: Regulation takes effect (Phase I)
  • July 1, 2026: Secondary legislation provisions apply (Phase II)
  • December 9, 2027: Deadline for Directive transposition
  • December 9, 2032: Expiration of grace period for spare parts protections

Expanded scope of protectable designs

A – Digital and non-physical designs

The scope now includes graphical user interfaces, virtual objects, and spatial configurations in virtual environments. This reform reflects market trends in gaming, metaverse technologies, and digital user experiences.

B – Animated and virtual elements

Designs incorporating movement or transitions are now explicitly protected, such as app animations, dynamic web content, or virtual clothing.

Procedural innovations in design filing

A – Simplified multi-design applications

Applicants may include up to 50 designs in a single application, with no requirement to group them under the same Locarno class.

B – Visual representation and application requirements

Only visibly represented features in the application will be protected, resolving a longstanding ambiguity. Mandatory elements include applicant identity, visual representation, and indication of product use.

C – Harmonized deferment of publication

Applicants may defer publication for up to 30 months. A request to block publication must be submitted at least 3 months before deferment expiry.

Strengthened rights and enforcement mechanisms

A – 3D printing and digital file protections

Rights holders can now block unauthorized sharing or use of digital files enabling 3D reproduction, offering critical protection in an era of decentralized manufacturing.

B – Enforcement against infringement in transit

Design rights may be enforced even if the infringing goods are merely transiting through the EU, aligning with trademark law.

C – Fast-Track invalidity procedures

The EUIPO can now expedite invalidity procedures when uncontested, reducing enforcement delays.

Ownership clarifications and employment relationships

Ownership of a design belongs by default to the creator or successor, unless created during employment, in which case the employer becomes the owner. National laws and contracts may override this default rule.

Financial impact and new fee structure

The reform introduces a comprehensive revision of the fee structure applicable to designs within the European Union. While certain upfront costs have been reduced (notably, the filing fee for a single design has decreased from €350 to €250) renewal fees rise significantly from the third renewal period onwards.

This shift is designed to benefit SMEs and short product life-cycle industries (such as fashion, accessories, and digital goods) by easing entry costs and streamlining the registration process. Conversely, it may place a heavier financial burden on sectors with long product life cycles, including automotive, home appliances, and industrial engineering, where sustained protection over 20 to 25 years is critical. For these industries, the escalating renewal costs necessitate proactive budgeting and strategic portfolio management.

Harmonized grounds for refusal and invalidity

New optional grounds for refusal include designs that:

  • Misuse emblems or signs of public interest
  • Reproduce elements of national cultural heritage (e.g., monuments, traditional clothing)

Unregistered designs: a clarified regime

First disclosure outside the EU may still qualify for unregistered protection if it reasonably reaches the relevant EU public. This flexibility aligns the law with modern digital dissemination practices.

The new repair clause and its market implications

Effective December 9, 2027, the repair clause allows reproduction of design elements necessary to restore the original appearance of complex products (e.g., car parts).

  • Strict conditions apply: Must be used for repair only, and origin must be disclosed.
  • Does not apply to trademarks or parts not critical to visual restoration.

This clause fosters competition and circular economy goals, but raises compliance questions.

Enhanced legal certainty and creative freedom

Legitimate uses of protected designs now include:

  • Comparative advertising
  • Commentary and critique
  • Parody

These are permitted under fair trade principles and aim to preserve freedom of expression and market transparency.

Strategic considerations for international businesses

Businesses should:

  • Audit portfolios and renewals deadlines to identify models that require renewal or consolidation, taking into account the new fee structure, which imposes a heavier financial burden in the long term.
  • Update employment contracts regarding ownership, particularly for employees likely to create designs as part of their duties. The reform confirms that, by default, rights belong to the creator unless a contrary clause or specific national provision applies. A clear contractual clause prevents future disputes over ownership and strengthens the company’s legal security in case of litigation or rights transfers.
  • Always assess on a case-by-case basis whether it is more advantageous to opt for an international application under the Hague System or a Community design application, depending on the target countries, exploitation prospects, and budgetary constraints.

Conclusion

The reform modernizes EU design law for the digital age, introduces procedural efficiency, and fosters innovation through clarity and flexibility. While offering opportunities, it also requires proactive adaptation by rights holders.

Dreyfus Law Firm advises rights holders across Europe and internationally to implement these changes strategically.

The Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

1 – What rights are granted by a registered Community design in the EU?
A registered Community design (RCD) in the European Union grants its owner the exclusive right to use the appearance of a product or part of a product resulting from its visible features (such as lines, contours, shapes, textures, materials, or ornamentation). This right enables the holder to prohibit third parties from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, importing, exporting, or using a product incorporating the protected design, or from holding such a product for these purposes. Protection extends throughout the EU and lasts for five years, renewable in five-year increments up to a total of 25 years.

2 – Can a design be transferred?
Yes. A registered design is an intangible asset that can be transferred through sale, contribution to a company, inheritance, gift, or via corporate restructuring (merger, demerger). To ensure enforceability against third parties, it is advisable to record the transfer in the register maintained by the EUIPO (or the national office for national designs). It is also possible to grant an exclusive or non-exclusive licence for the use of the design.

3 – Where should a design be filed for protection in Europe?
To obtain EU-wide protection, an application must be filed for a Registered Community Design (RCD) with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This single application offers protection across all 27 EU Member States. Alternatively, the Hague International Design System administered by WIPO allows for international filings designating the EU and other jurisdictions in one procedure. National filings remain possible for country-specific needs or complementary strategies.

4 – What is the difference between a design and a model?
Under EU law, the terms “design” and “model” are used interchangeably to refer to the legal protection of a product’s appearance. However, in some national systems (e.g., French law), a practical distinction exists:

  • A design typically refers to a two-dimensional feature, such as a pattern or graphic interface;
  • A model refers to a three-dimensional shape, like a product, packaging, or industrial object.
    In both cases, protection concerns the aesthetic appearance, not the technical function of the product.
Read More

Thaler v. Perlmutter: Affirmation of human authorship in copyright law

Written by Antony09/04/2025

On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rendered an impactful decision in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, reinforcing the principle that copyright protection is exclusively reserved for works created by human authors. This ruling has significant implications for the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property law.

Introduction

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has revolutionized various sectors, including the creative industries. However, this technological evolution has raised complex legal questions, particularly concerning the eligibility of AI-generated works for copyright protection. The recent decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter addresses these issues head-on, providing clarity on the necessity of human authorship in copyright law.

Background of the case

Dr. Stephen Thaler, a pioneer in AI research, developed an artificial intelligence system known as the “Creativity Machine.” This system autonomously produced an artwork titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” In 2019, Dr. Thaler sought to register this AI-generated artwork with the United States Copyright Office, listing the Creativity Machine as the sole author and himself as the copyright claimant.

Legal proceedings and arguments

A – Initial application and denial

The Copyright Office denied Dr. Thaler’s application, citing its longstanding policy that copyright protection extends only to works created by human authors. The Office emphasized that non-human entities, such as machines, cannot be recognized as authors under the Copyright Act.

B – District Court proceedings

Challenging the Copyright Office’s decision, Dr. Thaler filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He argued that the human authorship requirement was neither mandated by the Copyright Act nor the Constitution. The district court upheld the Copyright Office’s decision, affirming that human authorship is a fundamental prerequisite for copyright eligibility.

C – Appeal to the D.C. circuit

Undeterred, Dr. Thaler appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He contended that the term “author” in the Copyright Act should encompass non-human creators, especially in the context of advanced AI systems capable of independent creativity.

Court’s analysis and rationale

A – Interpretation of author in the Copyright Act

The appellate court conducted a thorough analysis of the term “author” as used in the Copyright Act of 1976. Notably, the Act does not explicitly define “author.” However, the court examined various provisions within the Act that implicitly require human authorship:​

  • Ownership and transfer provisions: The Act presupposes that authors have the legal capacity to own property and transfer rights, capacities that machines inherently lack.​
  • Duration of copyright: Copyright protection is tied to the life of the author, a concept inapplicable to non-human entities.
  • Termination rights: The Act provides for termination rights exercisable by the author’s heirs, underscoring the human-centric framework of copyright law.

Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the Copyright Act necessitates human authorship for a work to qualify for copyright protection.​

B – Rejection of non-human authorship arguments

Dr. Thaler proposed that the work-for-hire doctrine allows non-human entities to be considered authors. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the doctrine permits employers to be deemed authors of works created by human employees within the scope of their employment, but it does not extend authorship to machines or AI systems.

Implications for AI-Generated works

A – Human involvement in creative processes

The court’s decision reaffirms that copyright protection is reserved for works with identifiable human authorship. This does not preclude the use of AI in the creative process; however, there must be substantial human involvement and creative contribution for a work to be eligible for copyright protection.

B – Future considerations

As AI technology continues to evolve, the delineation between human and machine contributions may become increasingly complex. Future legal frameworks may need to adapt to address these challenges, ensuring that copyright law remains relevant in the age of artificial intelligence.

Conclusion

The Thaler v. Perlmutter decision underscores the enduring principle that human creativity is at the heart of copyright protection. While AI can serve as a valuable tool in the creative process, the law currently requires a human touch to confer copyright.

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

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions in the evolving field of AI and copyright.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

1 – Does AI have copyright?
No. Under current legal frameworks in the United States, France, and most jurisdictions worldwide, artificial intelligence cannot hold copyright. Copyright law recognizes only natural persons (human beings) as authors. The recent ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter (2025) reaffirmed that a work created autonomously by an AI system without human authorship is not eligible for copyright protection. Machines are regarded strictly as tools, not as legal subjects.

2 – Why does AI pose a threat to copyright law?
AI challenges the fundamental principles of copyright, particularly authorship, originality, and legal accountability. When a work is generated autonomously without substantial human input, it becomes difficult to assess whether it qualifies for protection and, if so, who owns the rights. Additionally, generative AI systems are often trained on protected datasets without authorization, raising significant risks of massive infringement, bypassing of creators, and erosion of intellectual property value. The mass production of AI-generated content also complicates the detection and protection of authentic human works.

3 – What is the impact of artificial intelligence on the law?
Artificial intelligence has a transformative effect on legal systems, presenting both challenges and opportunities:

  • In intellectual property law, it compels a re-evaluation of the concepts of authorship, ownership, and originality.
  • In contract law, it raises issues regarding the validity of agreements negotiated or executed by autonomous agents.
  • In liability law, it prompts questions about assigning responsibility for harm caused by AI systems.
  • In data protection law, it intersects with privacy regulations and the governance of algorithmic decisions.

Legal frameworks will need to evolve significantly while preserving their core principles, to provide a fair and effective regulatory response to AI-driven innovation.

Read More

The Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corp. v. Ross Intelligence Inc. Case: Implications for AI training and copyright law

Written by Antony09/04/2025

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH et al v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., Docket No. 1:20-cv-00613 

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), the intersection of AI development and intellectual property rights has become a focal point of legal discourse. The case of Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corp. v. Ross Intelligence Inc. dated February 11, 2025 serves as a landmark in this context, addressing critical questions about the use of copyrighted materials in AI training processes.

Background of the case

Parties involved

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and its subsidiary, West Publishing Corp., are prominent providers of legal research and information services, notably through their Westlaw platform. Ross Intelligence Inc., on the other hand, was an AI startup aiming to revolutionize legal research by developing an AI-powered platform to provide efficient legal information retrieval.

Nature of the dispute

The dispute arose when Thomson Reuters alleged that Ross Intelligence had unlawfully utilized content from Westlaw’s proprietary database to train its AI system. Specifically, Thomson Reuters contended that Ross had copied headnotes and other editorial enhancements from Westlaw without authorization, constituting copyright infringement. Ross Intelligence countered by asserting that their use of the materials fell under the fair use doctrine, a legal principle permitting limited use of copyrighted works without permission under certain circumstances.

Legal issues presented

Copyright infringement allegations

Thomson Reuters claimed that Ross Intelligence’s actions amounted to direct and willful copyright infringement. The crux of their argument was that the headnotes and editorial content in Westlaw are original works protected under copyright law, and Ross’s reproduction of these elements for commercial gain violated their exclusive rights.

Fair use defense

In response, Ross Intelligence invoked the fair use defense, arguing that their use of Westlaw’s content was transformative and served the public interest by fostering innovation in legal research. They posited that their AI system did not merely replicate the original content but utilized it to develop a novel tool that enhanced legal information accessibility.

Court’s analysis and decision

Evaluation of copyright claims

The court meticulously examined whether the materials in question were subject to copyright protection. It affirmed that the headnotes and editorial content produced by Thomson Reuters involved sufficient creativity and originality to warrant copyright protection, thereby recognizing them as protected works under the law.

Assessment of fair use doctrine

The court then evaluated the applicability of the fair use doctrine by analyzing the following factors:

  1. Purpose and character of the use: The court determined that Ross’s use was commercial and not sufficiently transformative, as it replicated the original content’s purpose.
  2. Nature of the popyrighted work: The works used were factual but included creative elements, weighing against fair use.
  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used: Ross had used a substantial portion of the protected content, which was central to Thomson Reuters’ offerings.
  4. Effect on the market: The court found that Ross’s use could potentially supplant the market for Westlaw’s services, adversely affecting Thomson Reuters’ revenue.

Based on this analysis, the court concluded that Ross Intelligence’s use did not qualify as fair use and constituted copyright infringement.

Broader implications for AI and copyright

Impact on AI training practices

This ruling underscores the necessity for AI developers to exercise caution when using copyrighted materials for training purposes. It highlights that unauthorized use of protected content, even for innovative applications, may lead to legal repercussions. Developers are encouraged to seek licenses or utilize public domain data to mitigate infringement risks.

Future legal considerations

The case sets a precedent for how courts may approach similar disputes involving AI and copyrighted content. It emphasizes the importance of balancing technological advancement with the protection of intellectual property rights. Stakeholders in the AI industry should closely monitor legal developments and consider proactive measures, such as developing internal guidelines for content use and engaging in policy discussions to shape future regulations.

Conclusion

The Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case serves as a pivotal reference point in the ongoing dialogue between AI innovation and copyright law. It illustrates the complexities inherent in applying traditional intellectual property principles to modern technological contexts and signals a call to action for both legal professionals and AI developers to navigate these challenges collaboratively.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

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

Join us on social media !

FAQ

  1. What was the main issue in the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case?
    The primary issue was whether Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ copyrighted materials to train its AI system constituted fair use or copyright infringement.
  1. What is the fair use doctrine?
    Fair use is a legal principle that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
  1. How did the court rule on the fair use defense in this case?
    The court ruled against Ross Intelligence, determining that their use of the copyrighted materials did not meet the criteria for fair use and thus constituted infringement.
  1. What are the implications of this ruling for AI developers?
    AI developers must be cautious when using copyrighted content for training purposes and should consider obtaining licenses or using public domain data to avoid legal issues.
  1. Does this case affect all AI applications using copyrighted materials?
    While this case sets a significant precedent, each situation may differ based on specific facts. It’s advisable for AI developers to consult legal experts when dealing with copyrighted materials.
  1. Can AI systems use any copyrighted material under fair use?
    Not necessarily. The applicability of fair use depends on factors such
Read More

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

Written by Antony09/04/2025

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

Recent legal actions in the United States

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

Case of Kadrey v. Meta

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

Legal proceedings against OpenAI and Microsoft

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

International legal developments

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

Legal action in France against Meta

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

Legislative and regulatory initiatives

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

United States: Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

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

European Union: AI Act

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

FAQs

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

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

What is the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act?
It is a proposed U.S. legislation requiring companies to disclose the copyrighted materials used to train their generative AI systems, aiming to increase transparency and protect creators’ rights.

How is the European Union addressing AI and copyright issues?
The EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act includes provisions for transparency in the use of copyrighted materials for AI training and mandates labeling of AI-generated content.

What should companies developing generative AI models consider regarding copyright?
Companies should ensure they have the necessary rights or licenses for the data used in training their models and stay informed about evolving legal and regulatory requirements to mitigate infringement risks.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in intellectual property law and are committed to assisting clients in navigating the complex intersection of AI and copyright. Our firm collaborates with a global network of attorneys specializing in intellectual property to provide comprehensive support.

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

Read More

The third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Objectives and future perspectives

Written by Dreyfus02/04/2025

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has necessitated the development of comprehensive frameworks to ensure their ethical and responsible use. In this context, the European Commission has introduced the third draft of the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, aiming to guide AI model providers in aligning with the stipulations of the EU AI ActRegulation (EU) 2024/1689). This article delves into the primary objectives of this draft and explores its future implications.

I – Objectives of the third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

A – Enhancing transparency

A cornerstone of the third draft is its emphasis on transparency. All providers of general-purpose AI models are mandated to disclose pertinent information about their models, including design specifications, training data sources, and intended applications. This initiative seeks to foster trust among users and stakeholders by ensuring they are well-informed about the functionalities and potential limitations of AI systems. Notably, certain open-source models are exempted from these transparency obligations, reflecting a nuanced approach to diverse AI development paradigms.

B – Addressing copyright concerns

The draft also tackles the intricate issue of copyright in AI development. Providers are required to implement measures that respect intellectual property rights, ensuring that AI models do not infringe upon existing copyrights. This includes establishing mechanisms for rights holders to report potential violations and for providers to address such claims effectively. The draft outlines that providers may refuse to act on complaints deemed “manifestly unfounded or excessive, particularly due to their repetitive nature.”

C – Ensuring safety and security

For AI models identified as posing systemic risks, the draft delineates additional commitments focused on safety and security. Providers of these advanced models are obligated to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, implement robust mitigation strategies, and establish incident reporting protocols. These measures aim to preemptively address potential threats and ensure that AI systems operate within safe and ethical boundaries.

II – Future perspectives of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

A – Implementation challenges

As the AI landscape continues to evolve, implementing the GPAI Code of Practice presents several challenges. Providers must navigate the complexities of aligning their operations with the Code’s requirements, which may necessitate significant adjustments in their development and deployment processes. Ensuring compliance without stifling innovation will be a delicate balance to maintain.

B – Global influence and harmonization

The GPAI Code of Practice has the potential to set a global benchmark for AI governance. By establishing comprehensive guidelines, the European Commission aims to influence international standards, promoting harmonization across jurisdictions. This could lead to a more cohesive global approach to AI regulation, benefiting both providers and users worldwide.

Alongside the third draft, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs are also introducing a dedicated executive summary and an interactive website. These resources aim to facilitate stakeholder input, both through written comments and discussions within working groups and specialized workshops. The final version of the Code is expected in May, serving as a compliance framework for general-purpose AI model providers under the AI Act, while integrating cutting-edge best practices.

C – Continuous evolution and adaptation

Recognizing the rapid pace of AI advancements, the Code is designed to be adaptable. It emphasizes the need for continuous evolution, allowing for updates and refinements that reflect technological progress and emerging ethical considerations. This flexibility ensures that the Code remains relevant and effective in guiding AI development responsibly.

Conclusion

The third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice represents a significant step toward responsible AI governance. By focusing on transparency, copyright respect, and safety, it lays a foundation for ethical AI development. As the cCde progresses toward finalization, its successful implementation will depend on collaborative efforts among stakeholders to address challenges and seize opportunities for global harmonization.

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

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

1 – What is the AI Act?

The AI Act is a regulation proposed by the European Commission aimed at governing the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems within the European Union. It is the first comprehensive legal framework in the world dedicated to AI, designed to balance innovation and fundamental rights protection. The AI Act classifies AI systems into four risk levels: • Unacceptable risk (banned, such as social scoring systems or subliminal manipulation). • High risk (subject to strict requirements, including AI systems used in critical infrastructures, recruitment, or judicial decisions). • Limited risk (requiring transparency obligations, such as chatbots or deepfakes). • Minimal risk (with no specific obligations, such as AI-powered content recommendations). The primary objective is to ensure that AI systems deployed in the EU comply with fundamental rights, safety, and transparency while promoting responsible innovation.

2 – When will the AI Act come into force?

The AI Act was provisionally adopted in 2024 and is expected to come into force in 2025, following final approval by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. However, its implementation will be gradual: • Some immediate provisions will take effect six months after publication. • Rules for high-risk AI systems will apply starting in 2026. • Additional obligations, such as those for general-purpose AI models, may not be fully implemented until 2027. This phased approach allows businesses to adapt their operations to comply with the new regulatory framework.

3 – What is the legal framework for AI?

The legal framework for AI currently consists of a combination of European and national laws covering various aspects: 1. The AI Act (set to come into force in 2025), which will provide specific regulations for AI development and deployment. 2. The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), which governs the use of personal data—a key issue for AI systems. 3. The Product Liability Directive (Directive 85/374/EEC) and the upcoming AI Liability Directive (COM(2022) 495 final 2022/0302 (COD)), which define the responsibility of AI developers and users in case of damages. 4. Sector-specific regulations (e.g., finance, healthcare) that impose industry-specific AI compliance requirements. 5. Copyright and intellectual property laws, which impact the training datasets of generative AI models (e.g., ensuring that AI does not infringe on existing copyrights). This legal framework is constantly evolving to protect users and promote ethical AI development.

Read More

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

Written by Dreyfus01/04/2025

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

Recent legal actions in the United States

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

Case of Kadrey v. Meta

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

Legal proceedings against OpenAI and Microsoft

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

International legal developments

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

Legal action in France against Meta

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

Legislative and regulatory initiatives

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

United States: Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

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

European Union: AI Act

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

What is generative AI?

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

Why is generative AI raising copyright concerns?

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

What is the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act?

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

Read More

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

Written by Dreyfus25/03/2025

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

Context and Legal Foundations

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

Key CJUE Decision of 24 October 2024

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

Impact on Protection for Artistic and Applied Works

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

Practical Consequences for Rights Holders

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

Recommended Next Steps & Best Practices

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

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

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

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

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

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. Does this ruling apply to all creative works?

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

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

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

3. Will this affect the duration of protection?

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

 

Read More

The Protection of AI-Generated Inventions Under Patent Law

Written by Dreyfus24/03/2025

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

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

 Patent eligibility of AI-Generated inventions

Patentability criteria

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

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

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

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

Challenges in recognizing AI as an inventor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legislative developments

International Perspectives

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

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

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

These guidelines specify that:

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

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

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

Recent changes in patent law

Some countries have already introduced legislative changes:

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

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

Practical Considerations for Innovators

Strategies for Protecting AI-Generated Inventions

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

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

Implications for Intellectual Property management

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, patent and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

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

Written by Dreyfus18/03/2025

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

Understanding Proof of Use

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

Legal Requirements for Maintaining Trademark Registration

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

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

Acceptable Forms of Proof

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

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

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

Consequences of Non-Compliance

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

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

Best Practices for Trademark Holders

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. What constitutes acceptable proof of use for goods?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. How often must I renew my trademark registration?

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

Read More

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

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2025

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

Case Background

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

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

Arguments of the Parties

Hermès’ Position

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

Blao&Co’s Defense

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

Legal Analysis of the Court

Originality of the Kelly and Birkin Bags

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

Trademark infringement

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

Implications of the Decision

For Fashion Designers

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

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

For Businesses

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

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

Conclusion

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

Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm: Your Intellectual Property Partner

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

Contact us for a personalized consultation and safeguard your designs!

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

FAQ

1. What is originality in copyright law?

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

2. Can handbags be protected by copyright?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Read More
Contact
Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin

© 2024 Dreyfus – Created by Agence Peach