News

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.

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 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

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.

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 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

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.

Introduction

Generative artificial intelligence systems are trained on vast quantities of text, images, music and audiovisual content. For authors, artists, publishers, producers and collective management organisations, however, one central difficulty remains: how can they prove that a protected work was actually used to develop or deploy an AI model when the training data remain largely opaque?

A bill dated December 12, 2025, introduced by French Senator Laure Darcos, seeks to address this imbalance by establishing a presumption of use of cultural content by artificial intelligence providers. Adopted by the Senate on 8 April 2026, the bill was then transmitted to the National Assembly. It does not create a new intellectual property right: it changes the rules of evidence so that right holders can enforce their rights more effectively.

Why is it so difficult to prove the use of works by AI?

Model training relies on data that are rarely accessible

To establish copyright infringement, the right holder must, in principle, identify the work concerned, establish its rights and characterise the alleged acts of reproduction or exploitation. This becomes particularly difficult when content has been absorbed into vast datasets, assembled by several service providers and used to train a model whose internal workings are not public.

To learn more about the issues arising from the use of protected works to train AI systems, we invite you to read our previously published article.

Right holders may sometimes identify similarities in a generated output, prompt the reproduction of an element resembling their work or identify a reference to content in technical documentation. These elements do not, however, always make it possible to establish the origin of the training data with certainty.

The opt-out mechanism does not by itself resolve the evidentiary difficulty

Text and data mining consists of automatically analysing large quantities of digital content in order to extract information, trends or correlations. Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 authorises, subject to certain conditions, the reproductions and extractions necessary for such analysis where they concern content that has been lawfully accessed. For mining carried out for any purpose, however, this exception applies only if the right holders have not expressly reserved their rights. This ability to object to text and data mining is commonly referred to as an “opt-out”: the right holder expressly indicates, in particular by machine-readable means, that they do not consent to their content being used for this purpose.

Under French law, these rules are set out in Article L. 122-5-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

In practice, a reservation of rights is not always sufficient to protect the right holder. The right holder may object to the use of its work without being able to determine whether it was incorporated into a training dataset or whether its objection was respected. Without access to the technical information held by the provider, it may therefore remain difficult to prove unauthorised use.

How would the presumption of use of cultural content operate?

The right holder would have to provide an indication making the use plausible

The bill provides that subject matter protected by copyright or related rights would be presumed to have been used by an AI provider where an indication relating to the development or deployment of the system, or to the output it generates, makes that use plausible.

It would therefore not be an automatic presumption applicable to every work available online. The claimant would have to provide a sufficiently specific prima facie showing. A mere abstract assertion that a model must necessarily have been trained on cultural content should not be sufficient.

1. The right holder submits one or more credible indications.
2. The provider, which holds the technical information, may produce evidence to the contrary.

The mechanism thus places the burden of proof more closely on the party that actually possesses the information needed to determine the origin of the data and the conditions under which they were used.

The presumption would remain rebuttable

The AI provider could rebut the presumption by demonstrating, for example, that the work was not incorporated into the corpus, that it was used under a licence, that it came from a source covered by an authorisation or that the use validly fell within an exception.

The proposal does not therefore mean that every provider would automatically be considered an infringer. It would create an evidentiary tool, not strict liability.

In a favourable opinion issued on March 19, 2026, the French Conseil d’État considered that the mechanism could be reconciled with European Union law, subject in particular to using the more neutral term “use”, protecting trade secrets and limiting the mechanism to civil matters.

The presumption would encourage the use of licensing

The presumption would relate only to whether content was used; it would not, by itself, establish that the use was unlawful. A provider could therefore show that the work concerned was covered by a licence or another authorisation. This mechanism would encourage providers to document their sources and enter into agreements with right holders in order to secure the training of their models. The presumption would thus serve as a lever for accountability and negotiation, potentially fostering the development of individual or collective licensing arrangements.

What evidence could trigger the presumption?

The bill does not set out an exhaustive list. The assessment would therefore have to be carried out by the court on a case-by-case basis.

Evidence derived from generated outputs

• the repeated generation of elements substantially similar to a work;
• the reproduction of a passage, image, composition or details unlikely to result from mere coincidence;
• the appearance of signatures, watermarks, copyright notices or metadata associated with the original content;
• the system’s ability to reproduce a very precisely identified creative universe.

An isolated similarity would not necessarily constitute sufficient evidence. The analysis would notably have to distinguish the reproduction of protectable elements from the reproduction of a style, an idea, a genre or commonplace characteristics.

Evidence relating to the development of the model

• documentation published by the provider;
• a description of the datasets used;
• transparency reports;
• statements by service providers or researchers;
• licences acquired for certain categories of content;
• information disclosed during an expert investigation or a court-ordered evidentiary measure.

How would the presumption interact with European law?

It would not abolish the text and data mining exception

The presumption would not directly alter the conditions of the text and data mining exception. It would operate upstream of the legal analysis in order to determine whether the content was used. Once that use had been established or presumed, it would remain necessary to determine whether it was:

• authorised by a licence;
• covered by the text and data mining exception;
• carried out despite a valid reservation of rights;
• or constituted copyright infringement
• or an infringement of related rights.

The bill would therefore not automatically guarantee compensation. Its main effect would be to prevent a claim from failing before any examination of its merits because of a lack of access to evidence.

It would complement the transparency obligations under the AI Act

The AI Act requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy designed to comply with European Union copyright law, including reservations of rights, and to publish a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training. Those transparency requirements do not, however, necessarily provide access to an exhaustive, work-by-work list of all the data incorporated.

The French presumption would thus serve a distinct function: facilitating the resolution of a civil dispute where the available information makes use plausible but does not yet make it possible to prove it directly.

Conclusion

The presumption of use of cultural content by artificial intelligence providers would not resolve every conflict between creation and AI. It would nevertheless provide a targeted response to one of the main obstacles encountered by right holders: the inability to prove technical facts under the exclusive control of their opponent.

Its effectiveness will depend on the definition of sufficient indications, the protection of trade secrets, its interaction with European law and the powers of the court to obtain reliable information. Cultural businesses already have an interest in formalising their reservations of rights and structuring the collection of evidence.

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

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of lawyers specialising in Intellectual Property.

FAQ

Can an AI system freely use every work available online?

The fact that content is available online does not mean that it is in the public domain. Its use may be covered by a licence or a statutory exception, or may require the right holder’s authorisation.

Is similarity between a generated image and a work sufficient?

Not necessarily. The similarity must be assessed in light of the original elements reproduced, the circumstances of generation and the other available evidence.

Can trade secrets prevent any disclosure of training data?

Trade secrets must be protected, but they do not necessarily preclude every evidentiary measure. Confidentiality mechanisms may allow a court or an expert to access certain information without making it public.

Why must AI providers strengthen the traceability of their data?

To rebut the presumption, they would have to be able to document the provenance of the data, the licences, filtering operations, the handling of opt-outs and the role of their subcontractors. Rigorous governance of training data would therefore make it easier to demonstrate lawful use or the absence of use of the work concerned.

What should a business do if its content appears to have been used?

It should preserve reproducible evidence (outputs, prompts, settings, date and model version), identify the works and rights concerned, review the relevant licences and reservations of rights and, with specialist counsel, determine the appropriate evidentiary measures and courses of action.

Introduction

Since April 14, 2026, the latest .de updates have changed the way .de domain names must be registered, transferred and administered. These changes, introduced by DENIC as part of its compliance with the European NIS2 Directive, are not merely technical adjustments for registrars. They directly affect trademark owners, legal departments, cybersecurity teams and domain name portfolio managers.

The central change is the move towards active verification of domain holder data. Information submitted when registering, transferring or updating a .de domain name may now be subject to a risk assessment. If the data appears incomplete, inconsistent or suspicious, a verification process may be triggered. Failure to resolve the issue within the applicable deadline may lead to suspension or even deletion of the domain name.

The significance of the .de updates for companies

The reform of .de domain name management forms part of a broader European cybersecurity framework. The NIS2 Directive aims to achieve a high common level of cybersecurity across the European Union, including for top-level domain registries and DNS service providers. Member States were required to transpose the NIS2 Directive by October 17, 2024, at the latest, and to implement the measures effective October 18, 2024.

For the .de namespace, this has resulted in stricter controls over the registration data associated with domain names under this extension. DENIC states that domain holders must provide accurate and up-to-date information, including the full name, legal form for legal entities, current postal address, email address and telephone number.

For companies, the issue is not merely administrative. A domain name may support a corporate website, an online store, email services, marketing campaigns, customer portals or brand protection strategies. A suspension can therefore have immediate operational and reputational consequences.

The .de domain name operations subject to verification

Since April 14, 2026, new .de registrations may be assessed at the time of order. Holder data is reviewed through a risk-based approach. If the information does not appear reliable, the registration may be blocked, quarantined or subject to further verification.

This approach is intended to reduce the use of false, unusable or manifestly inconsistent registration data. It is particularly relevant in the fight against phishing, fraudulent online stores, payment scams, trademark infringement and identity misuse.

Transfers and holder changes are also affected. A company wishing to move a .de domain name to a new provider or change the legal holder must therefore anticipate potential verification.

In practice, inconsistencies between internal records, registrar data, contractual documents and official company information should be avoided. A discrepancy in the company name, an outdated address or a missing legal form may be enough to delay or disrupt the transaction.

The .de updates also apply to contact updates on existing domain names. A change of address, email address, phone number or administrative contact may trigger a new assessment.

DENIC confirms that the obligation to maintain complete, accurate and verifiable data applies not only to newly registered domains, but also to existing domains, including those that have existed for many years.

The risks for trademark owners

The first risk is technical suspension, including through a serverHold status. In that situation, the domain name may stop resolving correctly. The website may become inaccessible, associated services may be disrupted and the company’s digital continuity may be affected.

For a trademark owner, the impact may be significant if the domain name is used for a .de website, local campaign, customer service platform, distributor portal or transactional service.

If the verification is not completed within the required timeframe, the process may ultimately lead to deletion of the domain name. Several technical providers have warned that unresolved verification requests may result in deactivation and later deletion if the data is not corrected.

This is particularly sensitive for strategic domain names. Deletion may create an opportunity for third-party registration, cybersquatting or portfolio disruption.

Companies with international portfolios often rely on several providers, several internal contacts and different management procedures. The new .de rules require stricter traceability.

Practical measures to prepare for DENIC verification requests

First, we recommend conducting a preventive audit of the .de portfolio. This audit must verify, at a minimum:

• the exact legal name of the holder;
• the legal form of the company;
• the complete and current postal address;
• the email address;
• the telephone number;
• consistency between registrar data and official corporate documents;
• the existence of an internal contact able to respond quickly to verification requests.

Companies using DomainBox should also monitor DomainUpdate poll messages in their API message queue. These messages may indicate that the registrant contact requires verification and specify the applicable deadline.

The practical risk often lies not in the verification itself, but in failing to detect the notification. A request received in an unmonitored technical environment may lead to an avoidable suspension.

Legal, IT and domain name teams should finally share a clear escalation process. When a verification request is received, the company should know who checks the data, who contacts the registrar, who validates supporting documents and who confirms that the issue has been resolved.

This risk-based approach is consistent with broader cybersecurity and data protection principles. The CNIL has emphasized that personal data security requires technical and organizational measures appropriate to the risks involved. This approach should also guide the governance of domain name portfolios.

Conclusion

The latest .de updates represent a significant change in the management of .de domain names. By strengthening holder data verification, DENIC has turned what was once an administrative formality into a genuine compliance and digital security issue.

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

Can a French company register a .de domain name?

Yes. The new rules do not prohibit foreign companies from registering a .de domain. Above all, they require that the registrant’s information be accurate, complete, and verifiable.

Should you avoid changing the contact information for a .de domain?

No. Outdated information poses a greater risk than a well-prepared update. You simply need to verify the information before making any changes.

Are defensive .de domain names affected?

Yes. Even if inactive or reserved defensively, a .de domain name must have reliable registrant information.

What should be done if a .de domain is managed by a former registrar?

You must identify the current registrar, verify the registered information, and, if necessary, arrange for a controlled transfer to your usual registrar.

Does the “serverHold” status mean the domain is lost?

No. It means the domain name is technically suspended. You must correct the information promptly to avoid subsequent deletion.

Do these new rules help combat online abuse?

Yes, indirectly. More reliable information can make it easier to identify abusive registrants, though it does not replace traditional trademark protection measures.

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.