News Archives - dreyfus

How can a fictional universe be protected through intellectual property rights?

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus05/08/2026

Introduction

A fictional universe cannot be protected as one indivisible asset. The strongest strategy combines copyright, trademarks, contracts and evidence measures, selecting the appropriate tool for each component of the fictional world and each intended form of exploitation.

A successful saga may encompass stories, characters, maps, invented languages, symbols, audiovisual adaptations, music, software, video games and merchandise. Each element raises a separate issue of protection, ownership and licensing. The first task is therefore to map the assets before deciding how they should be defended.

Why must the protection of a fictional universe be cumulative?

A fictional universe combines assets of different kinds No single right protects them all in the same way. The strategy should therefore begin with a map of the creative elements, ownership and planned uses, before matching each asset with the appropriate legal instrument.

Copyright protects original expression, not ideas

Under Article L. 111-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, the author of a work of the mind enjoys, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive intangible property right enforceable against all persons. Within a fictional universe, copyright may cover texts, illustrations, maps, dialogue, music, emblematic objects and sufficiently individualised characters, provided that they reflect creative choices. It does not create a monopoly over a genre, archetype or broad narrative idea. Successive versions, source files, correspondence and reliable timestamping should therefore be retained to establish priority and each contributor’s creative input.

Trademarks secure signs used in trade

Saga and character names, logos, emblems and recurring expressions may be registered where they are distinctive for the relevant goods and services. A trademark does not protect the story; it indicates commercial origin. The portfolio should reflect genuine or planned activities, including publishing, audiovisual content, gaming, events and merchandise. Under Article L. 714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code, a trademark may be revoked if it is not put to genuine use for an uninterrupted period of five years.

For a broader overview of genuine use in trademark law, we invite you to read our article: ” Genuine use and trademark litigation: burden, nature and scope of proof ? ”

How do licensing agreements govern the development of a fictional universe?

As the universe develops, rights may be divided among authors, illustrators, studios, publishers, developers, platforms and manufacturers. Its value then depends on the ability to demonstrate a clear, continuous and enforceable chain of title and then to define precisely the forms of exploitation granted to partners

Securing the chain of title before any adaptation

Before granting a licence or authorising an adaptation, the right holder in a fictional universe must be able to demonstrate that it effectively owns the necessary rights in each of its components.

Agreements entered into with the various creators must therefore identify their respective contributions and specify the rights assigned, the media, territories, duration, languages and forms of exploitation concerned. Article L. 131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code requires the scope of any assignment of rights to be precisely defined.

An incomplete chain of title may undermine an adaptation project, a commercial partnership or the development of derivative products.

For more information on the assignment of intellectual property rights, we invite you to consult our dedicated page: ” Assignment Agreement “.

Precisely define the rights granted to each licensee

Once ownership of the rights has been secured, licence agreements allow third parties to exploit certain elements of the fictional universe without transferring ownership of those elements to them.

Each licence must precisely define its scope and govern the conditions under which derivative works may be developed, in accordance with Article L. 131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code cited above. This helps prevent an adaptation from distorting the fictional universe, creating inconsistencies between different forms of exploitation, or generating uncertainty as to the ownership of any new characters, storylines or graphic elements developed by a commercial partner.

Managing fan works without weakening enforcement

Fan fiction, fan art, mods and wikis can strengthen a community, but may also reproduce protected elements or create commercial confusion. The right holder may publish guidelines specifying the uses it authorises or chooses to tolerate, particularly depending on whether they are commercial or non-commercial. Projects falling outside this framework may require individual authorisation or a licence.

The rules should be public, consistent and compatible with applicable exceptions, including parody and pastiche (Article L. 122-5, 4° of the French Intellectual Property Code).

How is artificial intelligence changing the protection of fictional universes?

Artificial intelligence raises two key issues for right holders in a fictional universe. First, texts, images, characters and other elements of that universe may be used to train AI models. Second, these tools may generate new content that reproduces or imitates certain characteristics of the universe.

Right holders must therefore act on two fronts: regulating the use of their content by AI providers and documenting the human contribution to creations produced with the assistance of AI.

For further information on how to prove that works have been used by AI, we invite you to read our article on this subject : “How could the presumption of use of cultural content by AI providers rebalance the burden of proof ?”

Reserving rights and monitoring training data

Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of April 17, 2019 permits text and data mining under certain conditions while allowing an appropriate reservation of rights. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act of June 13, 2024, also imposes transparency and copyright-compliance duties on certain providers of general-purpose AI models. Effective governance combines an inventory of online content, technical reservations, evidence of publication, monitoring and the relevant CNIL guidance.

Documenting human-led AI-assisted creation

The CSPLA report published on July 16, 16, 2026 confirms that copyright protection remains dependent on free and creative human choices that are perceptible in the resulting work. Accordingly, where an AI tool is used to develop a character, illustration or narrative, copyright protection will depend on whether such free and creative human choices can be identified in the final result.

We therefore recommend retaining the prompts, selections, iterations, edits and editorial decisions. This traceability facilitates the assertion of rights, licence negotiations and the assessment of the risk that pre-existing elements may have been reproduced.

Which practical measures provide lasting protection for a fictional universe?

Map texts, characters, settings, signs, software and individual contributions.
Date and document the creative process and each author’s participation.
Register trademarks that correspond to genuine commercial activities.
Audit agreements before any adaptation, licence or expansion into a new medium.
Regulate fan communities through a clear and proportionate policy.
Implement AI governance covering training, generated output and evidence of human input.

Conclusion

The protection of a fictional universe through intellectual property rights does not depend on a single exclusive right. It requires a coherent strategy combining copyright, trademarks, contracts, evidence and digital monitoring. The objective is not to lock away an imaginary world, but to identify the elements that are legally protectable, secure their exploitation and anticipate new forms of creation and distribution.

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

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

How should the partial reproduction of elements from a fictional universe be addressed?

The assessment should focus on the specific similarities between the works rather than merely on their general themes. The reproduction of an individualised character, specific visual features, dialogue, settings or an original combination of elements may be unlawful even where the work as a whole has not been copied. A case-by-case analysis is required to determine whether an action based on copyright infringement, trademark infringement or unfair competition may be available.

Do all creators contributing to the same fictional universe automatically own the same rights?

No. Ownership depends on the nature of each contribution, the status of the contributors and the contracts entered into between them. Financing, commissioning or supervising a creation does not necessarily result in an automatic transfer of copyright. Agreements should therefore clearly identify the relevant works, the rights assigned, the territories, the forms of exploitation and the duration of the assignment.

Can the title of a saga or game be registered as a trademark?

Yes, provided that it is distinctive in relation to the relevant goods and services. A title that is overly descriptive, commonplace or perceived solely as identifying the content of the work may, however, encounter difficulties during registration. A clearance search should also be conducted to identify any earlier rights that could prevent the registration or use of the sign.

How can the date of creation of a character or fictional universe be proved?

Copyright protection arises automatically, without any registration requirement. However, the rights holder must be able to prove the date and content of the creation. It is therefore advisable to retain source files, drafts, correspondence and successive versions, and to use a dated means of evidence, such as a deposit with a specialised body, an e-Soleau filing or another official timestamping system or a bailiff’s report.

Can a fictional universe be protected as a whole?

As a general rule, there is no exclusive right covering an entire fictional universe as such. Protection usually results from a combination of rights applying to its individual components, including copyright in texts, illustrations, characters and settings, trademark rights in distinctive signs, design rights in certain visual elements, and potentially unfair competition law where the reproduction creates a likelihood of confusion.

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.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus05/08/2026

One application can protect a trade mark across the 27 Member States of the European Union. That unitary reach explains why a change in EUIPO practice can alter the risk profile of a filing, opposition or revocation action across the entire EU.

In force since 1 July 2026 under Decision EX-26-09, the new edition is not legislative reform. It is, however, the operational reference used by examiners and practitioners. It requires a fresh look at clearance scope, the validity of earlier rights, specifications, procedural calendars and evidence.

The EUIPO’s official summary of the 2026 edition reveals seven changes with particular significance for trade mark portfolios.

Geographical indications: the principal methodological change

Ex officio review extending beyond comparable goods

Following legislative reforms and T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne, the EUIPO has clarified examination under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR. The Office may raise an objection beyond identical or comparable goods and related services where the available information indicates exploitation, weakening, dilution or detriment to the reputation of a geographical indication.

Clearance can no longer stop at trade mark registers. It should cover agricultural, wine, spirit, craft and industrial GIs, generic terms, the European consumer and the composition of processed goods. Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 extends this vigilance to sectors including textiles, glassware, jewellery, porcelain and furniture.

Restricting the specification is not always enough

Restricting a specification to goods complying with the relevant product specification may create a favourable presumption where the GI is used for identical goods or related services. The presumption can be rebutted. It will not cure an objection where the GI is evoked for other goods or services, or where a protected product is an ingredient, part or component of a processed product.

In opposition, Union registers and extended GIview data may make a GI easier to substantiate. The Guidelines also incorporate T-406/24, PriSecco / Prosecco, and clarify the treatment of craft and industrial GIs. For collective EUTMs consisting of a GI product-specific logo required by the relevant product specification, the Office will no longer object systematically on the basis that the sign will be perceived as a GI rather than a collective mark.

A sound European Union trade mark filing and enforcement strategy must therefore test the sign, specification, GI registers and message conveyed to the public before filing.

Geographical indications and trade marks: examination extends beyond identical goods.

Opposition: checking the right, calendar and procedure

The Court of Justice judgment of 5 February 2026 in C-337/22 P, Ape tees / DEVICE OF APE HEAD, confirms that an earlier right relied upon in opposition must remain valid until the decision. A missed renewal, cancellation or poorly documented chain of title can therefore undermine pending proceedings.

The new edition also changes the treatment of certain grounds. Where an opponent relies on a right that is ineligible under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opposition will now be rejected as inadmissible rather than unsubstantiated. This classification allows the file to be closed earlier.

A second or subsequent request for an extension no longer requires supporting evidence as a matter of course. The request must still be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances. After an initial six-month joint suspension, a further joint request triggers an automatic extension of 18 months, up to the two-year maximum, with either party able to opt out. Reduced documentary formality does not reduce the need for precise deadline management.

Comparison of signs: typography does not create a new right

For two word marks, the use of upper-case or lower-case letters no longer affects the comparison. “ORION”, “Orion” and “orion” must be treated as the same word sign. A non-stylised or slightly stylised single letter is considered to have weak inherent distinctive character.

For short signs, a structured trade mark similarity analysis should distinguish the legal identity of the sign, visual proximity and the overall impression created by its graphic elements.

Evidence and genuine use: building the file before the dispute

Part A now includes new guidance on evidence and the burden of proof. Each party remains responsible for establishing the facts relied upon through an intelligible evidential chain that can be tested by the other party.

For genuine use, the 2026 edition provides more detail on independent subcategories. Use shown for certain products will not necessarily maintain protection for an entire category. Invoices, catalogues, website captures, distribution data and advertising must be tied to the sign used, period, territory and goods concerned. Volume does not repair a missing evidential link.

Genuine use should be monitored through an evidence matrix recording, for each product, the item, date, territory, sales channel and version of the sign.

Filing, evidence of use and proceedings: three connected levels of review.

Revocation and conversion: measuring the effects before filing

A non-use revocation application may be inadmissible for abuse of law or process, but only in the exceptional circumstances identified in R 2445/2017-G, Sandra Pabst. A commercial objective or related dispute is not enough to establish abuse.

Requesting an earlier effective date of revocation does not require a legitimate interest, although that date may affect agreements, completed acts or parallel proceedings. R 1508/2019-G, Zara, also governs conversion following revocation where the applicant relies on genuine use under the law of a Member State. Any invalidity or revocation strategy before the EUIPO should therefore address national law and territorial evidence before the application is filed.

Finally, following decision R 1508/2019-G, Zara, Part E of the Guidelines clarifies the examination of a request for conversion filed after a European Union trade mark, or an international registration designating the European Union, has been revoked for non-use. Where the proprietor requests conversion for a Member State on the ground that the mark has been put to genuine use in that State, the question must be assessed under the national law of that Member State. The applicable national law and the territorially relevant evidence of use should therefore be anticipated within the conversion procedure itself, rather than, as a general rule, before any invalidity or revocation action is brought.

Collaboration between lawyers and patent and trade mark attorneys

Two complementary workstreams converging into one coherent, usable file.

The lawyer defines the legal basis, procedural strategy and relationship with national litigation. A patent and trade mark attorney who also acts as a court-appointed expert brings a technical reading of the register, specification, signs and evidence. This division of work avoids building a legally sound argument on an unusable factual record.

Composite case study, provided solely for illustration. A company has six weeks to prepare the European launch of a tableware range under a name evoking a region. The trade mark search reveals no decisive obstacle. Joint review nevertheless identifies a craft or industrial GI and a risk of evocation that the proposed restriction would not cure. The lawyer characterises the risk under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, while the attorney checks GIview, the claimed goods and available alternatives. A new name is selected before filing and the specification narrowed to the activities actually planned. The launch remains on schedule without waiting for an objection or rebranding after the campaign has started.

For the instructing lawyer or legal department, recording the analysis, sources and rejected alternatives also strengthens decision traceability and professional risk management.

Frequently asked questions

Do the 2026 Guidelines apply to pending proceedings?

They describe Office practice from 1 July 2026. The relevant act, transitional rules, applicable regulations and case law must be checked for each file. Earlier practice does not automatically create an acquired right.

What happens if the earlier right expires during an opposition?

The right relied upon must remain valid until the decision. Its status, renewal and ownership should therefore be monitored throughout proceedings, not only when the opposition is filed.

Can a restricted specification always overcome a GI objection?

No. A restriction may create a favourable presumption, but it can be rebutted. It may remain insufficient where the sign evokes the GI or a processed product incorporates the protected product.

Is a second extension granted without reasons?

No. Supporting evidence is no longer required systematically, but the request must be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances. The Office retains discretion.

How should genuine use be secured for a broad category?

Each item should be tied to a product, period, territory and the sign used. It must then be determined whether the evidence supports the entire category or only an independent subcategory.

Why instruct Dreyfus

Nathalie Dreyfus is a French patent and trade mark attorney and is included in the 2026 national list of experts approved by the French Court of Cassation, under category E-09.02 “Trade marks”. She is also listed as an expert with the Paris Court of Appeal for 2026. Her entry can be verified through the French National Council of Court Experts directory.

This combined experience in trade mark strategy and expert evidence anticipates how a specification, earlier right or item of evidence may be challenged before the Office and, if necessary, a court.

Turning the Guidelines into verifiable decisions

The 2026 edition does not overturn the principles of the European Union trade mark. It does impose greater discipline: search beyond trade marks, maintain the rights relied upon, reason procedural requests and build evidence by product and territory.

To audit the effect of these changes on a filing, opposition or existing portfolio, contact Dreyfus for an initial confidential discussion.

Dreyfus & Associés law firm partners with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

Official sources

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus01/08/2026

Introduction

The fashion industry relies almost entirely on intangible assets: a print, a silhouette, a clasp, a collection name. Unlike raw materials or manufacturing workshops, these creations cannot be locked away with a key: they must be protected legally to preserve their economic value. Fashion houses, from major luxury groups to emerging young brands, are today facing a triple pressure: the proliferation of online counterfeiting, the rise of marketplaces that multiply illicit points of sale, and new risks linked to artificial intelligence, capable of generating or reproducing designs within seconds.

Faced with this reality, no single intellectual property right is sufficient to cover every possible infringement. It is the combination of design rights, copyright and trademark law, supplemented by a monitoring and anti-counterfeiting strategy, that allows designers and fashion houses to durably secure their collections, their commercial identity and their competitive edge.

I- Which intellectual property rights protect a fashion creation?

A fashion creation can be protected by combining three complementary rights: design rights, which protect the appearance of the product; copyright, which protects original creations with no formality; and trademark law, which protects a house’s distinctive signs (name, logo, shape).

These are backed by evidence of the creation date, such as the INPI’s Soleau envelope, a notarial deposit or blockchain timestamping, which are valuable in the event of a dispute. These different layers of protection, detailed below, are cumulative and mutually reinforcing.

a) Design protection: the fashion designer’s tool of choice

A design protects the appearance of a product (its lines, contours, colours and texture) provided it meets two cumulative conditions: novelty (the design must not have been previously disclosed) and individual character (it must produce, on the informed user, a different overall impression from that produced by earlier designs).

In practice, filing is carried out with the INPI for national protection or the EUIPO for a European Union design, with protection lasting up to 25 years (5-year terms renewable four times). There is also a regime of unregistered EU designs, automatically protecting any creation disclosed within the EU for 3 years, with no formalities, a particularly useful safety net for collections with a short life cycle.

The European framework has just been thoroughly modernised by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823, which entered into application on 1 May 2025: the definition of “product” now extends to digital creations, movement and animation are taken into account, a new symbol has been introduced, and rights now extend to goods in transit within EU territory. The Dreyfus firm details all of these developments and their strategic implications for rights holders in its full guide to the 2025 EU design reform as well as in its article on the . For the official text, see Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 on EUR-Lex.

b) Copyright: automatic protection that is difficult to prove

Copyright protects fashion creations from the moment they are created, with no filing or formalities required, provided they are original, meaning they bear the imprint of their author’s personality (Cofemel case law, CJEU, 12 September 2019). This absence of formalism is both a strength and a weakness: in the event of a dispute, it is up to the creator to prove the date and authorship of their creation.

Several tools help establish this proof: the INPI’s Soleau envelope, deposit with a notary or bailiff, or, increasingly, blockchain timestamping. On this last point, French case law is beginning to accept this form of digital evidence, as explained by the Dreyfus firm in its analysis of the Marseille Judicial Court’s ruling of 20 March 2025: «Is blockchain evidence recognised in copyright matters?»

c) Trademarks: protecting a fashion house’s commercial identity

Trademark law protects a house’s distinctive signs, in several cumulative forms:

a word mark (the house’s name or a collection’s name);
a logo (semi-figurative mark);
a figurative mark (a pattern, a symbol);
a three-dimensional mark, which protects the very shape of a product or one of its distinctive elements.

This last category is subject to strict examination by trademark offices, to avoid granting a monopoly over a purely functional shape to the detriment of competition. Yet it enabled Hermès to secure a resounding victory: in its ruling of 7 February 2025 (No. RG 22/09210), the Paris Judicial Court held that the Kelly and Birkin bags were protected both by copyright (on account of their originality) and by the three-dimensional trademark covering their clasp and padlock, ruling against a company marketing bags and an NFT reproducing these features. The Dreyfus firm provides a detailed analysis in «Decision of the Paris Judicial Court on the Protection of the Iconic Kelly and Birkin Bags »; an official summary of the decision is also available on the EUIPO case-law database.

II- What are the main legal risks facing fashion brands?

a) Online counterfeiting and marketplaces

Marketplaces have multiplied sales channels, but also the areas of vulnerability for rights holders: counterfeit bags, cosmetics, watches and clothing are offered there at slashed prices, sometimes via “ready-to-use kits” including graphic branding, fake customer reviews and copied product photos. Social media amplifies this phenomenon by serving as both a showcase and a direct sales channel. The Dreyfus firm details the reporting mechanisms, the obligations imposed on platforms under the DSA and the DMA, and the available monitoring strategies in «Strengthening Intellectual Property rights protection against counterfeiting on marketplaces» and in «Trademark protection in the digital age: key issues and best practices».

The role of platform operators nevertheless remains governed by a nuanced body of European case law: in Coty v. Amazon (CJEU, 2 April 2020, C-567/18), the CJEU held that a mere warehouse keeper who does not itself use the sign at issue does not incur liability for trademark infringement, unless it had knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods stored.

b) “Dupes” and copies inspired by luxury products

The phenomenon of “dupes” (low-cost imitations that openly borrow the visual codes of a luxury product without directly reproducing the trademark) blurs the line between legitimate inspiration and counterfeiting. Widely popularized on social media, these products exploit legal grey areas: they often escape a classic trademark infringement action, forcing rights holders to combine copyright, design rights and actions for unfair competition and free-riding (parasitisme). The Dreyfus firm examines this phenomenon in «Legal challenges of product similarity in the fashion industry», as well as recent case-law developments on the subject in «Unfair Competition and Parasitism: Developments in Case Law».

A more sophisticated variant, referred to as “Pingti,” reproduces the quality, material and finish of a luxury product with no visible logo whatsoever, rendering a trademark infringement claim ineffective and forcing rights holders to turn to design rights, copyright or unfair competition instead. See «The Rise of Pingti: Discreet luxury counterfeiting».

c) Upcycling and personalisation: an emerging legal issue

Upcycling, the creative transformation of authentic, used products into new value-added items, raises an unprecedented question: to what extent can the exhaustion of rights doctrine (which allows the resale of a genuine product once placed on the market with the rights holder’s consent) cover a transformative reuse?

Two recent rulings from the Paris Judicial Court provide decisive guidance:

Paris Judicial Court, 10 April 2025, No. 22/10720 (Hermès v. Maison R&C / Atelier R&C): a designer was marketing denim jackets incorporating patches cut from authentic Hermès scarves purchased second-hand. The court held that transforming the scarves into jackets created a product distinct from the one originally placed on the market, ruling out the application of exhaustion of rights, and found the designer liable for copyright and trademark infringement as well as unfair competition and free-riding, awarding tens of thousands of euros in damages. The Dreyfus firm provides a full analysis in « Upcycling of jackets made from Hermès second-hand scarfs» .
Paris Judicial Court, 12 February 2025, No. 22/09315 (Rolex v. Skeleton Concept):applying similar reasoning, the court held that Rolex watches which had undergone substantial modifications could no longer be regarded as the products originally placed on the market by the trademark owner, since the essential function of guaranteeing origin was undermined once the modified product risked being attributed, in its altered state, to the trademark owner itself.

These rulings converge on a single principle: exhaustion of rights protects the resale of a genuine product, but does not extend to the marketing of a new product resulting from its transformation, a critical point of vigilance for players in sustainable fashion and the second-hand market.

III- What strategy should be adopted to effectively protect a fashion brand?

a) Building a protection strategy from the outset of creation

Essential checklist:

File designs before any public communication, including on social media and in showrooms;
Register strategic trademarks (word, figurative, three-dimensional) with the INPI, the EUIPO, or through the Madrid System for international protection;
Secure clear rights assignment clauses in contracts with in-house and external designers, covering ownership and exploitation of the creations;
Keep dated proof of creation (Soleau envelope, notarized deposit, or blockchain timestamping).

The Dreyfus firm details filing criteria and portfolio strategies in «Design & Model Law: What you need to know» and presents the sector’s general framework in «Fashion law in France: A strategic legal framework for the luxury industry».

b) Combining legal protection with an anti-counterfeiting strategy

Beyond filing, effectively defending a fashion brand rests on three complementary levers:

monitoring marketplaces and social media, to quickly detect infringing listings;
customs actions, through an application for intervention (AFA), which allows counterfeit goods to be intercepted at the EU’s borders under Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013, see «Customs Surveillance in Intellectual Property Matters »;
judicial proceedings (infringement seizure, infringement action, interim relief) as well as opposition and invalidity proceedings before the INPI or the EUIPO, to challenge conflicting filings upstream. See «When should you seek the assistance of a trademark law expert: distinctive signs, infringement and defense strategies? » and, for enforcement procedures in English, «Counterfeiting: opposition procedures, formal notice».

Conclusion

Protecting fashion creations in France requires a combined approach, bringing together design rights, copyright and trademark law, while anticipating the specific risks posed by online counterfeiting, dupes and upcycling. In an environment where digital technologies and artificial intelligence are accelerating the spread (and the copying) of creations, only a proactive intellectual property strategy, built in from the design stage of a collection, allows designers and fashion houses to durably preserve the value of their intangible assets.

Dreyfus law firm supports its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters, offering tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the full protection of their creations. The Dreyfus firm partners with a worldwide network of specialized intellectual property lawyers. Feel free to contact Dreyfus law firm for strategic support tailored to your brand.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Should a design be filed before presenting a collection? Yes. The novelty requirement means a design must be filed before any public disclosure, otherwise the creator destroys the novelty of their own creation (subject to the 12-month grace period).

2. What is the difference between unfair competition and counterfeiting in the fashion sector? Counterfeiting penalises the unauthorised reproduction of a registered or protected intellectual property right (trademark, design, copyright), whereas unfair competition and free-riding penalise wrongful conduct independent of any exclusive right, such as copying a competitor’s visual codes to unduly benefit from its reputation.

3. Does an independent designer have the same protections as a major fashion house? Yes, intellectual property rights apply in the same way regardless of a company’s size; only the resources devoted to monitoring and enforcing those rights typically differ between an independent designer and a large group.

4. How does artificial intelligence complicate the protection of fashion creations? It makes it easier to generate and reproduce designs almost instantly, which complicates the detection of online counterfeiting and requires fashion houses to strengthen their digital monitoring and keep dated proof of authorship.

5. How can a luxury brand be protected internationally? Through the Madrid System (WIPO) for simplified international filing, supplemented by targeted national filings in key development and commercialization markets, together with coordinated worldwide customs and digital monitoring.

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.

Legal sources

CJEU, 12 September 2019, Cofemel, C-683/17 (originality under copyright).
Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823 on designs, applicable from 1 May 2025 (EUR-Lex).
Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.
CJEU, 2 April 2020, Coty v. Amazon, C-567/18.
Paris Judicial Court, 7 February 2025, No. RG 22/09210, Hermès (Kelly and Birkin bags); EUIPO; INPI PIBD.
Marseille Judicial Court, 20 March 2025 (blockchain evidence in copyright).
Paris Judicial Court, 10 April 2025, No. 22/10720, Hermès v. Maison R&C (Legifrance).
Paris Judicial Court, 12 February 2025, No. 22/09315, Rolex v. Skeleton Concept.
French Intellectual Property Code; INPI (inpi.fr); EUIPO (euipo.europa.eu); Madrid System (WIPO).

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus31/07/2026

Introduction

French customs authorities are central to anti-counterfeiting enforcement because they can stop goods before they reach the market, control flows throughout the country and help identify organised supply chains. In 2025, French customs removed 20.22 million counterfeit articles from the market. This figure confirms that an effective brand-protection strategy cannot rely solely on online monitoring or litigation; it must also establish an operational relationship with customs authorities.

For rights holders, the key tool is the customs application for action. Free of charge and preventive in nature, it enables customs authorities to act at the borders of the European Union, particularly in ports, airports, freight hubs and postal sorting centres, as well as within the national territory during the transport, storage or circulation of goods. It allows rights holders to provide customs officers with the information needed to identify genuine products, detect irregularities and promptly contact the appropriate person when a suspicious shipment is intercepted.

Why are customs authorities central to anti-counterfeiting enforcement?

Controls at every stage of the physical flow

Customs action is not limited to the external border. Officers may control goods at import, export, circulation, possession and after customs clearance, that is, once the goods have completed customs formalities and have been authorised to enter or circulate within the territory. Ports, airports, roads, warehouses, postal traffic and express freight are covered by specialised units. French customs also relies on intelligence, dedicated investigation services and Cyberdouane to connect illegal online offers with the corresponding physical flow of goods.

A combined european and french legal framework

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of June 12, 2013 governs customs enforcement for goods under customs supervision, particularly when they enter the customs territory of the European Union.
The French Intellectual Property Code (for example, Article L. 716-8 of the French Intellectual Property Code, concerning trademark law) complements this framework for goods already cleared and circulating in France. The two mechanisms are complementary and should be combined where a business faces both import risks and domestic distribution.

For a broader overview of how customs surveillance is organised, the powers available to customs officers and cooperation between national, European and international authorities, we invite you to read our article ‘Combating counterfeiting: organizing european customs surveillance’.

How can rights holders activate effective customs surveillance?

File the appropriate application and keep it current

To enable customs authorities to monitor and detain suspicious goods, the rights holder must file an application for action. This application may be national, allowing French customs authorities to act in France only, or may cover several EU Member States where the right relied upon permits it, for example in the case of an EU trademark.

An application at Union level enables the rights holder to request action by the customs authorities of several Member States.

The application is free of charge, valid for one year and renewable. EU applications are filed through the IP Enforcement Portal (IPEP) and require an EORI number, which is an identification number used in dealings with EU customs authorities. The information provided must be precise and regularly updated, as customs officers use it to recognise genuine products and identify counterfeit goods.

Provide identification criteria that officers can use immediately

A strong application should specify:

the protected rights, their owners and the relevant goods;
visible features of genuine products, including labels, serial numbers, batch codes, packaging and security devices;
known fraud indicators, countries of origin, routes and high-risk operators;
authorised distribution channels and immediately available legal and technical contacts;
the preferred approach to small consignments and simplified destruction.

An application containing information that is too general does not enable customs officers to identify suspicious goods effectively. By contrast, illustrated product sheets, updated intelligence and a documented internal response protocol enable officers to distinguish a meaningful anomaly from an ordinary commercial variation.

For a detailed overview of the procedure for filing an application for action, the rights covered and the best practices that make customs surveillance fully operational, we invite you to read our article “Customs surveillance in intellectual property matters”.

What happens after suspected goods are detained?

A deliberately short response window

When a parcel or consignment appears to contain counterfeit goods, customs authorities may temporarily block its release or circulation in order to carry out checks.

If the rights holder has already filed an application for action, the goods may generally be detained for ten working days, or three working days if they are perishable. During this period, the rights holder must review the information provided by customs, confirm whether the goods are counterfeit and decide what action should be taken.

If no application has been filed in advance, customs may nevertheless act on their own initiative and detain the goods for four working days. The rights holder must then promptly file an application for action so that the procedure can continue.

Because these deadlines are very short, the company must be able to identify suspicious goods quickly, gather evidence of the infringement and decide whether to request their destruction or initiate legal proceedings.

Assessment, simplified destruction or court proceedings

The rights holder must confirm the infringement on the basis of photographs, data or samples supplied by customs. Where the statutory conditions are met and the declarant or holder agrees to destruction, or does not object within the applicable period, the goods may be destroyed under customs supervision. If the detention is challenged, judicial measures may be required. A customs detention is a temporary verification measure; a customs seizure follows the establishment of a customs offence.

To explore the distinction between customs detention and seizure, the applicable time limits, simplified destruction and possible court proceedings, we invite you to read our article “Seizure and customs detention: how to navigate the process”.

How should customs enforcement fit into an anti-counterfeiting strategy?

Build the internal process before the first alert

We recommend implementing a simple, documented decision chain:

appoint a primary contact and a substitute who remain available during sensitive periods;
prepare assessment templates and authentication criteria for each product family;
centralise registrations, powers of attorney, certificates and relevant evidence of use;
define in advance the thresholds for destruction, settlement and litigation;
feed information from customs alerts back into marketplace, domain-name and social-media monitoring.

Measure effectiveness beyond the number of seized articles

The number of intercepted products is not enough, on its own, to assess the effectiveness of customs surveillance. The information collected during each detention should also be reviewed, including the origin of the goods, transit countries, transport methods, sellers involved and the outcome of the case.

This information helps identify counterfeiting routes, detect recurring risks and better target future enforcement action.

Conclusion: turning customs surveillance into a strategic advantage

The role of French customs in the fight against counterfeiting extends far beyond isolated product interceptions. It forms part of a broader strategy to protect intangible assets, safeguard consumers and dismantle illegal networks. A precise application for action, responsive contacts and systematic use of customs intelligence allow businesses to intervene before counterfeit goods enter legitimate channels.

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.

Q&A

Which application should be chosen: a national application or an application at Union level ?

The choice depends on the territory through which the goods are likely to circulate and on the territorial scope of the rights relied upon. A national application may be sufficient where the risk is limited to France. An application at Union level is more appropriate where the goods may transit through several Member States or where the rights holder owns, for example, an EU trademark.

How should a company organise itself when it receives a customs alert ?

The company must be able to identify immediately the person responsible for the matter, verify whether the goods are genuine and respond within the deadline set by customs.

Is the simplified destruction procedure suitable for every detention ?

This procedure often allows the goods to be destroyed without immediately initiating court proceedings. It nevertheless depends on several conditions, including the position taken by the declarant or the holder of the goods. If the destruction is opposed, the authenticity of the goods is disputed or the matter is particularly significant, court proceedings may become necessary.

Can customs authorities act against counterfeit goods sent in small parcels ?

Postal and express consignments may also be inspected, even where they contain only a small number of products. The growth of online shopping has increased the importance of these controls. A specific procedure may apply to small consignments where the rights holder has agreed to its use in the application for action.

Can information collected during a detention be used in other enforcement actions ?

Information relating to the sender, recipient, country of origin, carrier or shipping method may help identify repeat sellers or distribution networks. It may then be used to guide online monitoring, prepare a new complaint or strengthen civil, criminal or customs enforcement proceedings.

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.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus29/07/2026

Introduction

After years of legislative preparation, the European Union has completed the overhaul of its design protection framework. Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823, which entered into force on 8 December 2024, roll out the reform in two phases: a first phase applicable since 1 May 2025, and a second, procedurally more substantial phase that takes effect on 1 July 2026. Member States have until 9 December 2027 to transpose the Directive into national law. For any business that files, manages or enforces designs in Europe, these deadlines call for early preparation.

I- Modernized representation for digital and animated designs

The reform adapts the concept of a design to digital and interactive products. Static, dynamic and animated representations are now expressly permitted, opening protection to user interfaces, icons, transitions and animations.

Icons, GUIs and transitions within an application can be represented through an animated sequence (video file or computer modelling).
The representation must define the claimed protection clearly and precisely — the scope of the right is strictly limited to what is shown in the application.
The title of the design and any descriptive text provided by the applicant do not affect the scope of protection.

II- A clarified scope of protection

The reform confirms that only the visual representation on file determines the scope of the right. Descriptive text or disclaimers submitted by the applicant neither narrow nor widen protection, which strengthens legal certainty and consistency across national offices and the EUIPO.

III- A revised fee structure to plan for

The fee structure has been substantially reworked. The publication fee is abolished and absorbed into a single flat registration fee. In exchange, renewal fees increase, particularly for international registrations under the Hague Agreement.

Fee item	Change
Filing fee (1st design)	Flat €350, publication included
Additional designs (2nd–10th)	€125 per design
Additional designs (11th onward)	€125 per design (up from €50)
Invalidity and appeal fees	Reduced
Formal fees (transfers, file inspection)	Some fees eliminated

Practical tip: for a multiple application, staying under ten designs keeps the per-design cost lower.

IV- Spare parts: the repair clause made permanent

The repair clause, previously transitional, becomes permanent. Component parts of a complex product (bumpers, printer trays, casings…) used solely to restore the product’s original appearance fall outside design protection.

This measure primarily targets the automotive spare-parts market, historically a source of litigation between component makers and rights holders.
It applies only to parts whose function is to restore the original appearance — not to spare parts generally.

V- New grounds for invalidity linked to cultural heritage

Under Article 14(2) of the Directive, a design may now be declared invalid if it reproduces or copies elements of cultural heritage of national interest to a Member State, or makes abusive use of symbols or emblems of particular public interest.

VI- Stronger tools against counterfeit goods in transit

Rights holders will be able to have infringing goods seized while merely in transit through EU territory, even where those goods are not intended for the EU market. This closes a loophole long exploited by counterfeiting networks routing goods through European ports and airports.

VII- A new optional “D” symbol

Mirroring the ® symbol for trademarks, rights holders will be able to display an optional “D” symbol on their products to indicate registered design protection.

VIII- Simplified filing through the EUIPO

Filing through national offices is no longer possible: all EU design applications must go through the EUIPO.
The Locarno-class unity requirement is abolished: a single application can combine designs from different classes.
A multiple application can now include up to 50 designs.

Conclusion

The reform of the European Union design system goes far beyond a simple change in terminology. With the modernization of design representations, a revised fee structure, the permanent adoption of the repair clause, and stronger measures to combat counterfeit goods in transit, 1 July 2026 marks a significant milestone for any business seeking to protect the appearance of its products in Europe. Anticipating these changes today will help avoid unexpected challenges and ensure the long-term security of your design portfolio.

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

Dreyfus Law Firm is part of a global network of intellectual property attorneys, allowing it to provide coordinated IP protection, enforcement, and strategic legal support for clients worldwide.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Are designs that were already registered affected by the reform?

Yes. Designs registered before the reform entered into force remain valid until their expiration. However, certain new procedural rules, such as those relating to renewals or the administration of rights, may apply to actions taken after the new provisions came into effect.

2. Does this reform only apply to large companies?

No. The new rules apply to all design rights holders, including large companies, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), startups, and independent creators. Anyone seeking to protect the appearance of a product within the European Union may be affected by these changes.

3. How can I determine whether a design is eligible for protection?

To qualify for protection, a design must generally be new and possess individual character compared to existing designs. Conducting a prior art search and obtaining a legal assessment beforehand can help determine whether a design is likely to meet these requirements.

4. Is it possible to protect the same design outside the European Union?

Yes. Depending on a company’s business strategy, protection can be extended to other countries through national filings or through an international registration, such as under the Hague System, where available.

5. Why is it advisable to work with an intellectual property professional when filing a design application?

An intellectual property professional can help develop the most effective protection strategy, ensure that the application complies with legal requirements, and identify potential risks related to invalidity or infringement. Professional guidance can ultimately strengthen both the legal protection and commercial value of a design.

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.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus28/07/2026

Introduction

Since June 19, 2026, any trader entering into a distance contract with a consumer through an online interface must provide the consumer with a free withdrawal function.

Compliance requires more than placing a button on a website. The journey must be easy to locate and use, include an explicit confirmation step, generate an acknowledgement on a durable medium and connect with refund and return processes. Legal, digital, finance, logistics and data-protection teams therefore need to work from a single operational framework.

The reform originates in Directive (EU) 2023/2673, implemented in France through Order No. 2026-2 of January 5, 2026 and Decree No. 2026-3. Consumers generally have 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract without having to give any reason. This period usually runs from the date the goods are received or, in the case of services, from the date the contract is concluded. In France, the 14-day withdrawal period was introduced more broadly by the Hamon Law of March 17, 2014, implementing Directive 2011/83/EU, and applies to contracts concluded from June 13, 2014 onwards.

An obligation extending beyond financial services

Although the European reform was adopted in the context of distance financial services, the French implementing measures also amended the general rules governing distance contracts. In practice, the obligation covers B2C contracts concluded through e-commerce websites, mobile applications, marketplaces and other online interfaces whenever a statutory withdrawal right exists. Sales of goods, services, subscriptions and digital products may therefore fall within scope.

The new function does not create a withdrawal right for contracts that are legally excluded. Bespoke goods, certain perishable products, services fully performed under the statutory conditions and some digital content supplied immediately may qualify for an exception. Businesses should therefore map their offers and avoid applying a single technical rule to every product without legal qualification.

The withdrawal function must be as easy to find as it is to use

A visible, permanent and unambiguous entry point

The French Consumer Code requires free, easy, direct and permanent access throughout the applicable period. The entry point must be labelled “Withdraw from the contract here” or use similarly unambiguous wording. A discreet reference in the terms and conditions, a generic contact page or a journey that requires repeated searches is unlikely to meet the accessibility standard.

Before the contract is concluded, the consumer must also be informed of the existence and location of the function. The terms and conditions, help pages, order confirmation and customer account should therefore describe the same journey that is actually available online.

A structured declaration and a time-stamped confirmation

The form must allow the consumer to provide or confirm their first and last name, information identifying the relevant contract and the electronic means through which the acknowledgement should be received. A second action, labelled “Confirm withdrawal” or in equivalent unambiguous terms, must complete the submission. The trader must then send an acknowledgement within a reasonable time on paper or another durable medium, including the declaration and the date and time of submission. These requirements are set out in Article D. 221-5 of the French Consumer Code.

How should businesses organise operational compliance?

1. Map customer journeys and assign responsibilities

Each contracting channel, product category, applicable period and exception should be documented. Where a marketplace is involved, the parties must determine who displays the function, receives the request, issues the acknowledgement and retains the evidence. These responsibilities should match the agreements between the seller, platform, payment provider and logistics operator.

2. Build a genuinely functional UX and technical workflow

IT teams should integrate the function into both front-end and back-end systems:

appropriate authentication,
order-data retrieval,
acknowledgement generation,
date-and-time logging,
CRM transmission and
internal workflow initiation.

Testing should cover mobile devices, applications, guest checkouts, multi-item orders, incorrect email addresses and peak traffic. A visible function that fails in practice remains non-compliant.

3. Connect withdrawal requests with refunds and returns

For sales of goods, reimbursement must generally be made within 14 days after the trader is informed, subject to the right to defer payment until the goods are received or evidence of dispatch is provided. Finance and customer-service teams should verify that e-commerce payment service providers or comparable operators can process refunds through the appropriate payment method. Logistics systems must identify the return, update inventory and match the product with the withdrawal declaration.

4. Embed data protection and compliance evidence

The form processes personal data. The data-minimisation principle requires fields to be limited to what is necessary. Privacy information must be concise and accessible, security must be built into the design, and retention periods must reflect operational and evidentiary needs. Businesses should retain dated screenshots, release versions, technical logs, acknowledgements and refund records, while restricting internal access to those who need it.

What are the consequences of non-compliance?

Failure to provide a compliant function falls within the rules governing the exercise of the withdrawal right. Article L. 242-13 of the French Consumer Code provides for an administrative fine of up to EUR 15,000 for an individual and EUR 75,000 for a legal entity. Businesses may also face DGCCRF investigations, individual claims, refund disputes and loss of customer trust.

A missing function should be distinguished from a failure to inform the consumer of the withdrawal right. The latter may extend the consumer’s withdrawal period. A purely visual implementation, without updated pre-contractual information or evidence that the journey works, is therefore insufficient.

Conclusion

The online withdrawal function is now a mandatory component of the B2C contracting journey. Businesses should verify the legal scope, button accessibility, form fields, confirmation step, acknowledgement, refunds, returns and evidence trail as a single process. Organisations that deployed a solution before the deadline should continue to test, audit and document its actual operation.

For further information, we invite you to consult our article on the right of withdrawal applicable to sales made through social media, as well as our page dedicated to website and e-commerce law.

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

Q&A

Does the online withdrawal function apply only to financial services?

The French implementing measures cover the general regime for distance contracts concluded through online interfaces and also contain specific provisions for financial services. Businesses should therefore review all B2C journeys, not only banking and insurance products.

Must consumers use the online function to withdraw?

The new journey facilitates withdrawal without removing other lawful methods of expressing an unambiguous decision, including a letter, email or standard form. Internal procedures should therefore be capable of handling several channels.

How should products excluded from the withdrawal right be handled?

The journey should reflect the legal classification of the contract. Any exception must be verified, clearly disclosed to the consumer and correctly configured in the interface, without extending the statutory exclusions.

How long must the function remain available?

It must remain accessible throughout the period applicable to the relevant contract. The system should calculate the period from the correct trigger: receipt of goods, conclusion of a service contract or any applicable special regime.

What evidence should be retained to demonstrate compliance?

A useful file includes journey versions, time-stamped screenshots, functional specifications, test results, submission logs, acknowledgements, refund evidence and internal procedures. Retention must remain proportionate and secure.

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.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus27/07/2026

Introduction

In the sports industry, athletic performance represents only one part of the value being created. An athlete’s name, a club crest, the design of a piece of equipment, footage of a competition, a training technology or data generated by a wearable device may all constitute valuable business assets. Intellectual property and sport are therefore closely connected: intellectual property rights help identify, protect, commercialise and enforce the elements that distinguish athletes, clubs, organisers and sports businesses.

An effective strategy does not merely consist of accumulating registrations. It requires organisations to identify their assets, establish ownership, secure the relevant agreements and control exploitation across physical and digital markets.

Trademarks protect the identity of athletes, clubs and competitions

In the sports industry, a trademark may protect a club name, an athlete’s nickname, a logo, a slogan, a signature, a mascot and, in appropriate circumstances, a sound or animated sequence. Registration gives its owner exclusive rights in relation to specified goods and services within the designated territory.

The filing strategy must reflect the underlying business model. Relevant categories may include clothing, footwear, sports equipment, entertainment services, competition organisation, digital content, virtual products and retail services. An overly narrow specification may leave commercially important activities exposed, whereas an unnecessarily broad filing may become vulnerable if the trademark is not genuinely used.

Copyright protects original sports-related content

Photographs, videos, posters, musical works, graphic identities, websites, software and advertising campaigns may benefit from copyright protection when they reflect original creative choices. Protection generally arises without registration, but disputes frequently concern the evidence of creation, originality and ownership.

A club that commissions a new visual identity does not necessarily acquire all rights merely because it paid the designer. The assignment should identify the transferred rights, media, territories, duration and permitted uses. Delivery of the source files or payment of an invoice may not constitute a sufficiently comprehensive transfer.

Patents and designs protect sports innovation

Innovations involving materials, footwear, protective equipment, timing systems, connected devices or technical performance-analysis tools may qualify for patent protection when they are new, inventive and capable of industrial application.

The appearance of a helmet, shoe, shirt or accessory may separately be protected by a registered design. Confidentiality should be maintained before filing because an early public disclosure may destroy the novelty required in certain jurisdictions.

Promotion of sports brands, image rights and innovations

Athletes’ image rights require precise contractual provisions. Image rights should not be confused with trademark rights or copyright. A photographer may own copyright in a photograph, while the person depicted retains rights concerning the commercial use of their likeness.

A campaign agreement should therefore address authorised media and formats, relevant territories, the duration of use, editing and adaptation rights, the products or services being promoted, withdrawal and termination mechanisms, uses on social media, digital platforms and artificial intelligence systems.

Broad language authorising “all uses” may conceal substantial uncertainty. Particular care is required where an athlete’s individual agreements overlap with collective team rights, competition rules or the rights granted to official sponsors.

Moreover, licensing converts intellectual property into revenue. A licence allows an equipment manufacturer, broadcaster, publisher or game developer to use an asset without acquiring ownership. It should define the licensed products, channels, territories, royalties, quality controls, approval procedures and enforcement responsibilities.

Securisation of broadcasting rights and sponsorship agreements

Under French law, sports federations and qualifying event organisers own the exploitation rights in the sporting events or competitions they organise. Those rights provide the legal foundation for the commercialisation of audiovisual works.

Several layers must nevertheless be distinguished:

the organiser’s rights in the event;
rights in the audiovisual signal;
copyright and related rights held by producers and contributors;
participants’ image rights;
trademarks appearing in the stadium or on equipment.

The contractual chain should be audited before a party broadcasts, retransmits, clips or commercially repurposes footage.

A sports sponsorship agreement should not be reduced to a general promise of visibility. It should define the protected product category, exclusivity, permitted signs, approval procedures, athlete deliverables, social-media obligations and consequences of reputational harm.

The parties should also anticipate ambush marketing, where a third party seeks to create an association with an event without being an official sponsor. The partnerships with Olympic and paralympic athletes addresses the legal and contractual safeguards relevant to major sporting events.

To learn more about ambush marketing, we invite you to read our previously published article.

Digital risks to anticipate by sports organisations

Illegal streaming, counterfeit merchandise, fraudulent ticketing websites, impersonation accounts and misleading domain names reduce revenue and undermine supporters’ trust. WIPO identifies the fight against illegal sports-content streaming as a central intellectual property issue for the sector.

An operational enforcement program should coordinate the monitoring of trademarks, marketplaces, social platforms, mobile applications and domain names. The response may include evidence preservation, platform notices, cease-and-desist letters, technical blocking, trademark opposition, infringement proceedings or alternative dispute resolution.

Sports data requires a separate governance framework

Wearable devices may record heart rate, weight, injury information, location and physiological performance. Such information does not necessarily constitute intellectual property, but it may be protected through confidentiality, trade-secret rules, contracts and data-protection legislation.

The French Data Protection Authority notes that performance information may reveal health data. Organisations must identify the data controller, restrict collection to what is necessary and establish secure access controls. In professional sport, consent may not always provide an appropriate legal basis because the athlete’s dependency may prevent it from being freely given.

Conclusion

Intellectual property and sport must be approached through a coordinated strategy. Trademark and design filings should be aligned with copyright agreements, image rights, licences, sponsorship contracts, data governance and digital enforcement.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Q&A

1. Can an athlete register their name as a trademark?

Yes, provided that the name is available and satisfies the applicable registration requirements. The specification should cover goods and services linked to the athlete’s present activities and credible commercial plans.

2. Who owns images of a sporting event?

Several parties may hold distinct rights. The organiser may own exploitation rights in the event, while a producer, broadcaster, photographer and the individuals depicted may each hold separate rights.

3.How can a club or athlete protect themselves against fake accounts and misleading domain names?

Monitoring social media, online platforms and domain names helps detect impersonation. Depending on the circumstances, the available measures may include takedown notices, cease-and-desist letters, blocking requests or alternative dispute resolution procedures concerning domain names.

4. What is ambush marketing in sport?

Ambush marketing occurs when a business seeks to associate itself with a sporting event without acquiring official sponsorship rights. Its legality depends on the signs used, the overall communication and whether it creates confusion or takes unfair advantage of protected assets.

5. How can counterfeit sports goods be challenged?

An effective strategy combines monitoring, evidence preservation, marketplace notices, customs measures, cease-and-desist letters and, where appropriate, court proceedings or domain-name dispute procedures.

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.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus27/07/2026

Introduction

China adopted a substantially revised Trademark Law in June 2026. The new legislation, comprising 87 articles, is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027. It addresses malicious filings, trademark hoarding, deceptive signs, excessive enforcement practices and misconduct by trademark agencies.

Filing activity must reflect a legitimate business rationale

Chinese authorities are seeking to distinguish commercially justified filings from speculative accumulation. Bad faith may be inferred from repeated imitation of third-party signs, large numbers of unexplained applications, appropriation of public resources, infringement of prior rights or systematic squatting.

A company should therefore no longer file extensive lists of marks and goods without being able to justify their utility. We recommend documenting the following at the time of filing:

the intended use of each mark;
the relationship between the specification and the planned activity;
how the sign was selected;
which clearance searches were performed;
whether distributors, manufacturers or local partners had prior access to the brand.

These records may become important where an application pattern is challenged as excessive or inconsistent with genuine commercial needs.

Brand owners must supervise enforcement agents

Recent case law also demonstrates that enforcement cannot be outsourced without governance. In a Shanghai case, a trademark owner had issued blank authorizations to an agency and law firm that brought repetitive, profit-driven claims. The owner was held jointly liable because it had failed to exercise reasonable care.

Representatives should identify the relevant infringements, permitted measures, settlement authority, reporting obligations and internal approval thresholds. A brand protection program should remain targeted, documented and proportionate.

A rigorous assessment of a trademark’s validity by the courts

Chinese case law takes a more stringent, but also more fact-based, approach to absolute grounds for refusal.

First of all, deceptive trademarks require an objective misleading effect. Article 10 prohibits signs capable of misleading the public as to the quality, origin or characteristics of goods. However, an assumed association or promotional suggestion does not necessarily establish deception.

MAMBA FOREVER, filed for computer game software, was accepted after the CNIPA refusal was overturned. Although “Mamba” was associated with Kobe Bryant, the expression did not misdescribe an inherent characteristic of the software or objectively mislead purchasers.

Similarly, promotional wording included in a mark for baby nappies was accepted because it remained within ordinary consumer expectations.

The outcome was different for a tea mark combining “1837”, prestige-related French expressions and “THE FINEST TEAS OF THE WORLD”. The sign conveyed potentially inaccurate claims regarding history and exceptional quality. Continued use later resulted in an administrative fine of RMB 400,000, illustrating that an absolute-ground objection may create a use-related compliance risk rather than merely prevent registration.

Second of all, contemporary public perception is increasingly important. A linguistically neutral term may acquire an unlawful or damaging market meaning. The Chinese term BIQUGE had become associated in the online literature sector with piracy-based reading platforms. Its registration was invalidated because that established meaning adversely affected copyright administration and public interests.

Clearance work should therefore cover platform terminology, sector-specific slang, social-media usage and meanings that may have developed after filing.

Penalties for bad faith and trademark squatting

Combating trademark brandjacking in China remains a priority, but the courts are now seeking to ensure that this policy does not penalize bona fide trademark owners.

Knowledge of a trademark acquired through a relationship with a distributor may constitute bad faith. Subsequent commercial use, even if prolonged, does not necessarily validate a fraudulent registration. However, when a trademark initially registered in bad faith is subsequently repurchased by its true owner, some rulings refuse to hold the owner liable for the consequences of the original fraud.

One particularly significant ruling ordered the fraudulent applicant to withdraw its pending applications and have its registrations canceled. This civil injunction could reduce trademark owners’ reliance on a series of administrative opposition, invalidation, and appeal proceedings.

New forms of counterfeiting to anticipate

Virtual and physical goods may be considered related. In the G. Patton case, a car trademark was used on virtual vehicle skins in a video game. The court considered that the absence of a physical product did not automatically exclude similarity. The commercial relationship between the goods and the likelihood that consumers would assume a common source remained decisive.

Businesses in the automotive, fashion, sports, entertainment and luxury sectors should review their protection for virtual objects, gaming content, avatars and immersive environments.

Classification does not override marketplace reality. In the Jinwei dispute, an alcoholic beverage was compared with a well-known non-alcoholic drink. Despite their classification differences, the court examined packaging, sales channels and target consumers and found a significant likelihood of confusion.

Watching only identical goods within the same class will therefore fail to identify material commercial risks.

Upcycling may fall outside trademark exhaustion. A company transformed second-hand luxury bags into new products while retaining visible monograms. The court held that exhaustion did not apply after substantial alteration. Recycling does not authorise a trader to make a third party’s famous mark the central selling point of a materially different product, particularly without a prominent disclaimer.

The effective remedies in China

A coordinated Chinese enforcement strategy may combine:

trademark infringement claims;
unfair competition proceedings involving imitations of product presentation, trade names, and parasitic conduct;
copyright or design rights for certain graphic elements;
Criminal proceedings in cases of organized counterfeiting
Customs measures and local administrative actions

Courts are showing greater willingness to award punitive damages where infringement is intentional and serious.

Criminal protection has also expanded. The 2025 judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate clarified the handling of criminal intellectual property cases, including the protection of service marks.

Conclusion

Recent developments in trademark law in China confirm four key trends: stricter regulations on trademark applications, a practical assessment of the market, a diversification of legal remedies, and more deterrent penalties. A regular audit of the Chinese trademark portfolio should therefore cover registered trademarks, pending applications, Chinese translations, digital assets, local partners, and evidence of use.

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

Q&A

Should a Chinese-language version of the trademark be filed?

This is strongly recommended where consumers, distributors or the media use a transliteration or translation of the mark. Otherwise, a third party could appropriate the name used locally.

How can a trademark filed in bad faith be cancelled?

The rights holder may consider opposition proceedings, invalidation proceedings, an action based on prior rights or, depending on the circumstances, a civil action for unfair competition. Evidence of prior dealings and the applicant’s knowledge of the mark will be decisive.

Can a registered trademark be cancelled if it is not used?

Yes. A trademark may be subject to cancellation where it has not been used for three consecutive years without a legitimate reason. The owner must then be able to provide dated and geographically relevant evidence of use directly linked to the goods or services covered.

Which documents should be retained to prove use of a trademark in China?

It is advisable to retain invoices, distribution agreements, customs documents, catalogues, advertisements, screenshots from online sales platforms and photographs of packaging. These materials should show the trademark, the goods concerned, the dates of use and, where possible, the Chinese territory.

Can a company take action against the use of its trademark in a Chinese company name?

Yes. The incorporation of an earlier trademark into a company or trade name may be challenged where it creates a likelihood of confusion or reveals an intention to benefit from the reputation of the rights holder. An unfair competition action may supplement remedies based on trademark law.

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

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus27/07/2026

Introduction

In the fashion industry, a motif may perform several functions. It may decorate a garment, but it may also indicate its commercial origin. The legal characterisation depends less on the label chosen by the seller than on how consumers will actually perceive the sign on the product.

In a judgment of 19 February 2026, the Paris Judicial Court applied this approach to T-shirts reproducing a stylised lion’s head close to the central figurative element of the semi-figurative Zelys Paris trademark. The decision provides useful guidance on trademark use, the comparison of a composite mark, the effect of a second trademark appearing on a label and, above all, the importance of evidence when seeking effective remedies (Paris Judicial Court, 3rd Chamber, 1st Section, February 19, 2026, Case No. 22/13133).

Facts: the reproduction of a stylised lion’s head on T-shirts

Two individuals jointly owned French semi-figurative trademark No. 4 520 372, filed on 30 January 2019 for goods including those in Classes 14, 18 and 25. The mark combined the words “Zelys Paris” with a stylised lion’s head surrounded by peripheral graphic elements.

The owners had granted non-exclusive licences to two companies active in the purchase and sale of clothing. After identifying T-shirts reproducing the lion motif, the licensees obtained authorisation to carry out an infringement seizure at the seller’s premises and subsequently brought trademark infringement proceedings. The licensees also relied on unfair competition and free-riding.

Two T-shirt references were at issue. Both reproduced the stylised lion’s head, while some models also displayed the word “Zelys” in the background. The colours, the words surrounding the design and certain peripheral elements nevertheless differed from the registered mark.

The seller mainly argued that the lion’s head was merely an ornamental element commonly used on garments and was therefore not used as a trademark. It further relied on the “Belman” label attached to the products, which, in its view, identified their actual commercial origin and excluded any likelihood of confusion.

Decision: the motif was used as a trademark and created a likelihood of confusion

1. The position and visibility of the motif established trademark use

The Court first examined the function actually performed by the contested signs. It observed that they appeared very prominently on the chest of the T-shirts, a position where many trademarks are commonly displayed. The average consumer could therefore perceive the motif as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods.

The allegedly decorative nature of the design was not sufficient to exclude infringement. The judgment does not establish that every motif placed on the chest automatically constitutes a trademark. Rather, it shows that position, size, visibility and the overall context of presentation must be assessed together.

2. The reproduction was not identical, but the imitation infringed the mark

The Court first rejected identical reproduction. The T-shirts did not reproduce every element of the registered mark, in particular the complete wording “Zelys Paris”, and some differences could not be regarded as insignificant.

It nevertheless found infringement by imitation. Visually, the stylised lion’s head was reproduced in its entirety. It was the central and most important element of the mark, while the differences mainly concerned colours, wording and peripheral ornamentation. The visual and conceptual similarity was considered high, despite low phonetic similarity.

According to the Court, consumers who do not necessarily see the signs side by side could interpret the differences as mere variations of the logo. They could therefore believe that the T-shirts originated from Zelys Paris or from an economically linked undertaking.

3. A label bearing another trademark did not remove the likelihood of confusion

The word “Belman” appearing on a label attached to the product did not alter the assessment. That indication was significantly less visible than the motif displayed on the chest and was therefore insufficient to prevent consumers from attributing an origin-identifying function to the stylised lion.

This finding is particularly relevant in fashion, where several signs may coexist on the same item: a manufacturer’s mark, a retailer’s mark, a collection name, a prominent graphic or a collaboration name. Adding another sign does not necessarily remove the risk created by the dominant reproduction of an earlier trademark.

4. Remedies were closely tied to the evidence actually produced

The defendant was held liable for trademark infringement. It was ordered to pay EUR 3,000 to each joint owner and to cease selling garments reproducing the stylised lion’s head, subject to a penalty of EUR 300 for each infringing item identified during a six-month period.

The damages nevertheless remained limited. The profits established by the evidence amounted to only EUR 170, and no evidence showed the existence of additional stock. The Court therefore refused to order destruction or confiscation and rejected publication of the judgment as disproportionate in light of the limited infringing volume.

ZS Diffusion was awarded EUR 170 for unfair competition after proving that it had marketed goods under the mark before the infringing acts. By contrast, the other licensee’s claims were dismissed because it failed to establish its own use of the trademark and the confusion affecting its business. The free-riding claims were also rejected because the alleged investments and reputation had not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Significance: practical lessons for the fashion industry

The decorative nature of a motif must be assessed in context

The decision confirms that there is no automatic divide between decoration and distinctiveness. The same graphic may be perceived as a mere ornament in one presentation and as a trademark in another. Its size, repetition, position, visual autonomy and sector practices may all influence that perception.

Businesses should therefore not assume that a graphic may be freely reproduced merely because it is used aesthetically on clothing. Clearance should cover existing figurative trademarks and the precise way in which the sign will be presented to the public.

A composite trademark may be enforced through its dominant figurative element

A mark combining words and a design must always be compared globally with the contested sign. The decision nevertheless demonstrates that the complete reproduction of its central figurative element may carry substantial weight even where the verbal elements are not copied.

Owners should identify visual components intended to be used independently and, where commercially justified, consider filing them as separate figurative trademarks. This may facilitate enforcement of an emblem regardless of later changes to the wording or graphic charter.

Evidence directly determines damages and available remedies

The most operational aspect of the judgment is the distinction between establishing infringement and quantifying its consequences. Even where infringement is recognised, the owner must document sales volumes, remaining stock, margins, the duration of marketing, harm to the mark and relevant expenditure in order to obtain substantial compensation.

Screenshots, invoices, purchase orders, bailiff reports, sales data, inventories and information obtained through an infringement seizure should be preserved and cross-referenced. Without such evidence, the court may limit damages and refuse measures such as destruction, confiscation or publication of the judgment.

Licensees must establish their own use and their own loss

A finding of infringement in favour of the owner does not automatically compensate every licensee. Each licensee must be able to establish its role in exploiting the trademark, the goods it markets, the investments it bears and its own loss.

Licence agreements should therefore organise the preservation of evidence of use, the reporting of sales figures, cooperation in infringement seizure proceedings and the allocation of enforcement and damages claims.

Digital monitoring remains essential

This decision highlights the critical importance of digital monitoring in protecting a trademark. Imitations of graphic motifs circulate rapidly on e-commerce websites, marketplaces and social media. Visual recognition tools may help detect variations close to a protected logo or graphic. They should nevertheless be combined with human legal review, as visual resemblance alone does not automatically establish trademark infringement.

Register recurring figurative elements that genuinely identify the commercial origin of the brand.
Preserve dated evidence showing how the motif is used on products and in advertising.
Monitor new trademark filings, marketplaces, social media and retail websites.
Immediately document volumes, prices, stock and sales channels when an infringement is identified.
Include in licence agreements clear duties to provide evidence of use and cooperate in enforcement.

Conclusion

The judgment of February19, 2026 does not turn every motif appearing on a garment into a trademark. It does, however, confirm that the legal characterisation depends on consumer perception and the specific marketing context. A highly visible design placed where consumers commonly expect to see a source identifier may perform a trademark function and infringe an earlier right.

The decision also reminds owners and licensees not to overlook evidence. Protecting a motif, monitoring its reproduction and obtaining effective remedies are three separate steps, each of which depends on accurate documentation of use, the scale of the infringement and the resulting loss.

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

Q&A

How can you determine whether a graphic element should be protected through a separate trademark filing?

The answer depends on how the element is used over time. A separate filing may be appropriate where the design appears independently on products, packaging, stores or digital media, without always being accompanied by the brand name. Its stability, visibility to the public and ability to become an identifiable commercial reference should also be taken into account.

What evidence should be retained to enforce a figurative sign effectively?

The most useful evidence is that which shows how the public was actually exposed to the sign. Relevant materials may include catalogues, photographs of products and stores, packaging, advertising campaigns, social media posts, dated product pages, sales figures and documents relating to the creation of the design. These materials help establish use, visibility and commercial value.

Can the colour of a garment constitute a trademark in its own right?

Yes, subject to strict conditions. A colour may be registered as a trademark if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and enables consumers to identify the commercial origin of the product. The CJEU confirmed this principle in the Libertel judgment (C-104/01, 2003). The best-known example in the fashion industry is the Louboutin red sole, which the CJEU recognised as a valid trademark in 2018 (C-163/16) for the soles of high-heeled shoes.

Can an independent designer bring infringement proceedings without having registered a trademark?

A designer who does not own a registered trademark cannot bring an action on the basis of trademark law. However, they may rely on copyright protection, which arises automatically upon the creation of an original work, without any prior registration requirement. They may also bring an action for unfair competition or parasitism where a competitor unfairly benefits from their efforts or investment. These remedies are complementary and are often relied upon together in practice.

What time limits apply to trademark infringement actions in France?

A trademark infringement action must be brought within five years from the date on which the right holder became aware of the infringing acts, pursuant to Article L. 716-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code. This is a “rolling” limitation period, meaning that it runs separately from each distinct act of infringement. It is therefore essential to act promptly once an infringement is discovered, otherwise the claim may be held inadmissible.

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.

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus24/07/2026

Introduction

An infringement seizure, provided for in particular by Article L. 716-4-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code in trademark matters, is one of the most effective tools for gathering evidence of infringement quickly.

It is a judicial measure ordered by a judge and carried out without prior notice by a court-appointed enforcement officer. Within the limits set by the order, the officer may enter the premises of the targeted company, record the facts, describe or seize the disputed products, and collect certain commercial, technical or digital documents.

This measure may, however, provide access to information that goes beyond the scope of the dispute. An invoice may reveal prices negotiated with a supplier, purchasing arrangements or margin structures. A stock file may disclose available volumes, sales forecasts or forthcoming collections.

The challenge is therefore to preserve the effectiveness of the infringement seizure without allowing unjustified access to the targeted company’s strategic information. Trade-secret protection cannot be used to prevent the collection of necessary evidence, but it may justify targeted and proportionate safeguards.

What are the practical benefits of an infringement seizure?

For the rights holder, the value of an infringement seizure is very practical. It may identify the source of the goods, reconstruct manufacturing and distribution channels, assess the quantities placed on the market and quantify the loss suffered.

A well-prepared seizure can therefore turn a mere suspicion into a sufficiently documented case to seek an end to the infringing acts, obtain damages or enter negotiations from a position of strength.

The measure does not, however, create a general right of access to a competitor’s premises, documents or IT systems. The application must identify the material sought and explain its connection with the alleged infringement. Digital investigations must also be limited, for example by defined time periods, folders or keywords.

Where documents contain personal data or information unrelated to the dispute, only the data strictly necessary to establish the evidence should be collected or disclosed.

Which information may qualify as a trade secret?

Not all confidential information automatically benefits from trade-secret protection. Article L. 151-1 of the French Commercial Code sets out three cumulative conditions. The information must:

1. not be generally known or readily accessible to professionals in the sector;

2. have actual or potential commercial value because it is secret;

3. be subject to reasonable measures designed to preserve its confidentiality.

Confidentiality is not presumed

A company seeking protection for a document must show in practical terms how each item of information meets these conditions. It is not enough to label an entire file “confidential” or simply state that the documents are not public.

The company should identify the precise nature of the information, its economic or competitive value, the persons who can access it, the foreseeable consequences of disclosure and the measures implemented to protect it.

These measures may include confidentiality clauses, access restrictions, a document-classification policy, passwords, server segmentation or limits on downloading rights. Without such safeguards, a trade-secret claim may be rejected even where the information objectively has commercial value.

When sensitive documents are seized, their immediate disclosure may expose trade secrets. Provisional sequestration preserves their confidentiality while the judge decides how they should be disclosed.

How does provisional sequestration protect seized documents?

Provisional sequestration keeps sensitive documents temporarily in the custody of the court-appointed enforcement officer, without immediately disclosing them to the applicant. It does not remove the evidence: it gives the judge time to organise the disclosure of the documents to the party that requested the infringement seizure.

The judge may limit disclosure to selected information, require a redacted version or a summary, restrict access to a small number of people or examine the document alone. The French Supreme Court confirmed that the relevant statutory mechanism is provisional sequestration, rather than an improvised process of placing documents under seal (French Supreme Court, Commercial Chamber, February 1, 2023, No. 21-22.225).

For each document, the party asserting secrecy must prepare a complete version, a non-confidential version or a summary, together with a note explaining precisely why the information is secret. Action must be taken immediately: the regulatory framework provides a one-month period to request amendment or revocation of the order, failing which the sequestration may be lifted.

Sogema v. Crocs: what is the practical takeaway?

In 2024, Belgian customs blocked 4,932 pairs of shoes imported by Sogema because they were suspected of reproducing the protected shape of Crocs footwear. An infringement seizure then made it possible to collect several documents, including collection plans, product references, purchase prices, stock information and invoices.

Sogema sought to prevent disclosure of most of those documents, which it regarded as confidential. The Paris Judicial Court nevertheless required each document to be examined separately. For each one, Sogema had to provide a complete version, a version concealing the sensitive information or a summary, and explain precisely why the information should remain confidential (Paris Judicial Court, March 20, 2025, Case No. 24/09326).

Key point: it is not enough to claim that an entire file is confidential. The company must clearly identify the sensitive information and justify its protection document by document.

What action plan should be adopted?

For the company requesting the infringement seizure

The rights-holding company should prepare a precise application to obtain the useful evidence without going beyond what is necessary for the case.

Identify the products, documents and time periods to be examined.
Explain how each category of evidence may establish the infringement.
Limit IT searches, in particular by keywords, dates or folders.
Provide in the application for the possibility of placing sensitive documents discovered during the operation under provisional sequestration.
After the seizure, commence court proceedings within the applicable period in order to preserve the effects of the measure.

For the company targeted by the infringement seizure

The targeted company should cooperate with the operation while protecting its confidential information.

Check that the court-appointed enforcement officer strictly complies with the limits set by the order.
Immediately identify documents containing sensitive information.
Where possible, request that they be placed under provisional sequestration.
Prepare versions concealing confidential information and explain why that information should be protected.
Rapidly involve the legal, IT and finance teams, together with senior management, to ensure a coordinated response.

KEY TAKEAWAY
The strongest protection is prepared before a dispute arises. Mapping sensitive information, documenting access rights, using confidentiality clauses and establishing a response protocol all reduce the risk of disclosure.

Conclusion: anticipate to protect both the evidence and the company’s value

Infringement seizures and trade-secret protection are not incompatible. The balance depends on a precise court order, a properly organised sequestration process and an individual assessment of the confidentiality of each item.

We assist both rights holders and targeted companies with the preparation, execution and judicial follow-up of infringement seizures involving sensitive commercial, technical or digital documents.

Subscribe to our newsletter and follow Dreyfus & Associés on social media to receive our analyses on intellectual property and the digital economy.

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

Q&A

How should a company prepare for a potential infringement seizure?

The company should identify sensitive information in advance, restrict access to strategic documents and establish an internal response protocol enabling the legal, IT, finance and senior management teams to act quickly.

Which mistakes can weaken a request for trade secret protection?

An overly broad request, the absence of evidence showing that confidentiality measures were in place, or the inability to explain the commercial value of the information may lead the court to reject the protection sought.

Who may access documents placed under provisional sequestration?

Access depends on the court’s decision. It may be restricted to the enforcement officer, an independent expert, the parties’ lawyers or a limited number of individuals subject to confidentiality obligations.

How should a company respond when the seizure involves a large volume of digital data?

The company should ensure that the searches remain within the limits of the court order and, where necessary, request that the data be filtered by keywords, time periods or specific folders to avoid collecting information unrelated to the dispute.

Can information disclosed during the seizure be used for other purposes?

The documents collected should remain connected to the subject matter of the proceedings and the evidential needs of the case. If the information is used improperly or for purposes unrelated to the dispute, the affected company may ask the court to restrict its disclosure or 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.