News

Introduction

Adopted in 2022 and fully effective as of February 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act (DSA) established a harmonized European framework aimed at increasing the accountability of digital intermediaries, better regulating the dissemination of illegal content, products and services, and strengthening the protection of users online.

In 2026, its implementation will enter a particularly practical phase: following an initial period focused on compliance, European authorities are now stepping up their oversight and expect operators to demonstrate the actual effectiveness of the measures they have put in place.

Evolution of the Digital Services Act

Following the widespread implementation of the DSA in February 2024, European authorities have gradually stepped up their effective compliance with the obligations imposed on digital platforms and intermediaries. The challenge for companies is no longer merely to have formally implemented the measures required by the regulation, but to be able to demonstrate that they are effectively implemented, that they enable the identification and mitigation of the risks addressed by the DSA, and that they produce, in practice, the expected compliance results

This shift is reflected in particular by several proceedings and measures adopted by the European Commission against major digital platforms.

In July 2026, the European Commission fined AliExpress 550 million euros for failures in assessing and mitigating risks associated with the sale of illegal, dangerous, or counterfeit products. It also issued preliminary objections to TikTok regarding the default security settings for minors’ accounts and accepted an action plan from X focusing, in particular, on its advertising registry and researchers’ access to data.

The message to operators is clear: automation, the scale of the service, and technical complexity do not exempt companies from identifying risks or demonstrating the effectiveness of corrective measures. The DSA thus becomes a governance issue shared by the legal, compliance, product, IT, and intellectual property departments.

Which companies fall within the scope of the Digital Services Act?

Classification must be carried out service by service

The DSA provides for several levels of classification depending on the nature and role of the digital service in question. In particular, it distinguishes between simple transport, caching, and hosting services. Among hosting services, some may also be classified as online platforms and, when they enable businesses to enter into distance contracts with consumers, as online marketplaces.

The applicable obligations increase progressively depending on the classification chosen. Additional requirements also apply to very large online platforms and very large search engines, VLOPs and VLOSEs, with at least 45 million average monthly active users in the Union.

A single digital product may offer multiple features that fall under different classifications. A SaaS application, for example, may include a private hosting space, a public forum, and a marketplace offering modules developed by third parties. Each feature must therefore be examined separately to precisely identify the applicable obligations.

Non-EU providers may be directly subject to the DSA

The absence of an EU subsidiary does not exclude the Regulation. The DSA applies where a provider offers services to recipients in the Union and maintains a substantial connection with the EU market.

Relevant indicators may include the language used, euro pricing, payment methods, targeted advertising, the size of the European customer base, delivery arrangements and availability through localised app stores. Mere technical accessibility from the EU is not sufficient.

A covered provider with no EU establishment must appoint a DSA legal representative in a Member State where it offers services. This mandate remains legally distinct from the representative required under Article 27 GDPR, even where both roles are entrusted to the same service provider.

In France, Arcom acts as the Digital Services coordinator for Internet services. It operates alongside the DGCCRF and the CNIL under the French Law of May 21, 2024 on securing and regulating the digital environment.

Which DSA obligations must become operational controls?

Notice, action and redress

Article 16 requires hosting providers to operate accessible and sufficiently precise notice-and-action mechanisms. A properly substantiated notice may give the provider actual knowledge of the alleged illegality.

The provider must then assess the report diligently, document its reasoning and explain any restriction imposed. Online platforms must also provide an internal complaints-handling system and inform users about available out-of-court dispute-settlement procedures.

For intellectual property claims, the reporting form should identify:

• the intellectual property right concerned;
• the rights holder or authorised representative;
• the exact URL of the disputed content or listing;
• the evidence supporting the alleged infringement;
• the reporting party’s good-faith statement.

Fully automated removal may disregard licences, exceptions or territorial limitations. Conversely, failure to act on a properly substantiated notice may undermine the hosting provider’s conditional liability protection.

Transparency, advertising and recommender systems

Terms and conditions must clearly explain content restrictions, automated moderation tools and the role of human review.

Platforms must also:

• identify advertisements and the relevant advertiser;
• disclose the main advertising-targeting parameters;
• explain the principal parameters of recommender systems;
• submit statements of reasons to the EU transparency database.

Harmonised transparency-reporting templates have been mandatory since the second half of 2025. The Arcom professional guidance on the DSA explains the reporting and registration framework applicable in France.

VLOPs and VLOSEs must also perform systemic-risk assessments, implement mitigation measures, undergo independent audits and maintain advertising repositories. Since 29 October 2025, the EU data-access framework has allowed vetted researchers to request access to certain internal platform data relevant to systemic risks.

Safety and privacy for minors by default

Article 28 requires platforms accessible to minors to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security. The Commission’s July 2025 guidelines clarify expectations concerning age assurance, protective default settings, recommender systems, unwanted contact, addictive design and harmful commercial practices.

A contractual age restriction of thirteen or sixteen is not sufficient where no credible mechanism makes it effective. Regulators may consider the actual audience, the information available to the provider, the content offered and the effectiveness of age-assurance measures.

How should companies build a defensible DSA roadmap?

It is recommended for companies to:

• map every functionality and third-party content flow concerned by the DSA;
• determine whether the service falls within the territorial scope of the DSA and document the number of active users in the European Union
• test notices, response times, statements of reasons and appeals;
• audit traders and controls addressing counterfeit or unsafe products;
• Incorporate requirements related to minors, advertising, and recommendation systems from the very beginning of service design

retain decision logs, metrics and evidence required by regulators.

Conclusion

The update of the EU Digital Services Act in 2026 confirms that compliance is now measured through system quality, decision traceability and the practical effectiveness of safeguards. Platforms, marketplaces, hosting providers and community services should treat the DSA as a continuous programme coordinated with the GDPR, consumer law and intellectual property 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.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

Does the DSA apply to companies outside the European Union?

Yes. It may apply where they offer services to recipients in the Union and maintain a substantial connection with the EU market. A provider with no EU establishment must generally appoint an EU legal representative.

Do all online businesses have the same DSA obligations?

No. Duties depend on the service category, functionality, size and whether the service facilitates transactions between professional traders and consumers.

Must a platform remove every reported item immediately?

No. A sufficiently precise notice must be assessed promptly, objectively and proportionately. The DSA does not require automatic removal merely because content has been challenged.

What are the maximum DSA penalties?

An infringement may lead to a fine of up to 6% of annual worldwide turnover. Separate fines and periodic penalty payments may apply to inaccurate information or failure to comply with a regulatory decision.

Does the DSA replace the GDPR?

No. The two regulations apply cumulatively. The GDPR governs personal-data processing, while the DSA regulates intermediary services, content moderation, advertising, recommender systems and certain systemic risks.

How does the DSA support anti-counterfeiting enforcement?

It strengthens notice mechanisms, requires the traceability of professional traders on marketplaces and obliges the largest platforms to assess and mitigate risks involving illegal or counterfeit products.

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

Introduction

The grass used on a tennis court may include varieties protected by plant breeders’ rights. The distinction, however, is essential: intellectual property does not protect the lawn as a sporting surface, nor its colour, density or playing characteristics in the abstract. Protection attaches to an identified plant variety, provided that the legal requirements are satisfied and a valid right exists in the relevant territory.

Wimbledon makes that distinction particularly tangible. In its 2026 sports edition, WIPO Magazine explains that the exact varieties used at Wimbledon are not publicly disclosed, while noting that high-performance turfgrass of this kind is typically protected by plant breeders’ rights. Perennial ryegrass is selected for characteristics such as wear tolerance, rapid recovery, density and visual consistency. WIPO also notes that developing a sports-turf variety can require more than a decade of breeding and testing.

Why sports turf can be protected by plant variety rights

Plant variety rights are a specific industrial property regime designed to protect new plant varieties.

The applicable legal framework is based on several instruments that follow a broadly comparable approach:

• the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention;
• Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, applicable at European Union level;
• Articles L. 623-1 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code.

These instruments are based on a common principle: it is not the grass species as such that is subject to protection, but rather a sufficiently individualized plant variety capable of constituting a distinct subject matter of rights.

The protection criteria for a turfgrass variety

To qualify for protection, a variety must in particular be new, distinct, uniform and stable. It must therefore be clearly distinguishable from known varieties, sufficiently uniform in the expression of its relevant characteristics and capable of retaining those characteristics through successive propagation. A compliant variety denomination is also required.

These criteria are particularly relevant to sports turf because breeders are selecting reproducible performance traits:

• wear tolerance,
• recovery after heavy use,
• disease resistance,
• heat or drought resilience,
• visual uniformity.

WIPO Magazine reports that almost 7,000 varieties suitable for turfgrass use are protected across UPOV members, including varieties intended for tennis courts, football pitches, golf courses and multi-use sports surfaces.

What a plant variety right actually protects: the variety, not the tennis court

A plant variety certificate grants an exclusive right over certain acts concerning propagating or reproductive material. In France, Article L. 623-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code covers, in particular, production, reproduction, conditioning for the purpose of propagation, offering for sale, sale, import, export and stocking for those purposes. Article 13 of Regulation No 2100/94 provides for comparable protection at European Union level.

The practical consequence is important: playing tennis on a court established with a protected variety is not, by itself, an act reserved to the breeder. By contrast, reproducing or multiplying protected plant material without authorization in order to seed other courts, produce seed or place that material on the market may fall within the holder’s exclusive rights.

For more information on the protection, filing strategies and commercialization of plant varieties, we invite you to read our article: “Complete Guide to Plant Variety Rights 2025: Protection, Strategies and Commercialization”.

Wimbledon: protected genetics, seed mixtures and turf-management know-how

The Wimbledon example also shows that intellectual property protection is not limited to plant variety rights. WIPO notes that the exact varieties used are not publicly disclosed and that genetics account for only part of the performance: specialized turf management is crucial to maintaining a consistent playing surface from one year to the next.

The precise composition of a seed mixture, maintenance protocols, and parameters relating to mowing, irrigation, regeneration or seasonal preparation may therefore qualify as trade secrets where they are secret, have commercial value because of their secrecy and are subject to reasonable measures to keep them secret, in accordance with Article L. 151-1 of the French Commercial Code. Plant variety rights protect the variety itself, while trade secret protection may protect part of the technical “recipe” used to achieve a particular level of sporting performance.

For a broader analysis of this interaction, see our previously published article: “Why do plant innovations require a multidimensional intellectual property strategy?”.

How can the legal use of sports turf be secured?

For a club, stadium operator, tournament organizer or sports-surface supplier, the key question is not simply whether “the grass” is protected. It is whether the specific varieties being purchased, propagated or reseeded are subject to enforceable rights. Before procurement or a propagation programme, we recommend:

• • identifying the denomination of each variety and the breeder or right holder;
• • checking the existence and current status of the right in the relevant territory;
• • confirming that the supplier is authorized to market the material;
• • reviewing contractual clauses on propagation, reseeding and subcontracting; and
• • retaining invoices, batch references and traceability records.

UPOV’s PLUTO database is a valuable search tool, but UPOV expressly states that it does not replace the official publication of the competent authority.

For a European project, the filing and verification strategy can also be explored in greater detail in our article dedicated to filing a plant variety right in the European Union: “Filing a plant variety right in the European Union: what complete legal and administrative checklist should be followed to secure your rights?”

Conclusion

The grass on a tennis court can therefore sit at the centre of a genuine intellectual property strategy. The protected asset is not the court itself, but the plant varieties used to create it, while confidential know-how, seed mixtures and contractual arrangements may provide additional layers of protection. At elite level, the performance of a playing surface reflects the interaction between plant breeding, plant variety rights, agronomic expertise and disciplined contractual management.

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.

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

Q&A

Can artificial turf be protected by plant variety rights?

No. Plant variety rights protect plant varieties, not artificial playing surfaces. Synthetic turf may instead fall within other intellectual property regimes, for example patents for technical innovations, designs for certain visual features or trademarks for commercial signs.

Can a protected turfgrass variety be used to breed a new variety?

Under EU law, breeding and developing other varieties fall within the exemption in Article 15 of Regulation No 2100/94. The exemption does not eliminate rights over an essentially derived variety, whose commercial exploitation may still require the authorization of the initial variety’s holder.

How long can a turfgrass variety remain protected?

The duration of protection depends on the relevant right and territory. In the European Union, protection generally runs until the end of the twenty-fifth calendar year following the year in which the right was granted, and until the end of the thirtieth year for varieties of vine and tree species. In France, Article L. 623-13 of the French Intellectual Property Code likewise provides for a general term of twenty-five years from the grant of the certificate, while certain categories, including perennial fodder grasses and legumes, benefit from a thirty-year term. The botanical classification of the variety and the applicable protection title should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Can a turfgrass variety be protected by both plant variety rights and a patent?

A plant variety as such is excluded from patentability. However, Article L. 611-19 of the French Intellectual Property Code allows an invention relating to plants to be patented where its technical feasibility is not limited to a particular plant variety and the other patentability requirements are met.

Can the name of a protected turfgrass variety be registered as a trademark?

The variety denomination must remain available to identify the variety. A separate trademark may accompany commercialization, but cannot prevent required use of the denomination. In practice, the varietal denomination and commercial brand are therefore often kept distinct.

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

A patent is a strategic asset when it protects useful technology, supports a competitive advantage and can be exploited, enforced or monetized. Filing and grant do not guarantee lasting value: a patent may remain in force while becoming misaligned with the company’s products, markets or strategy.

A patent audit compares the legal and technical position of a patent or portfolio with the company’s actual business strategy. It identifies rights to secure, strengthen, exploit, license, sell or, where justified, allow to lapse. It extends the logic of active trademark and patent portfolio management.

What is a patent audit?

A patent audit is a legal, technical and strategic review of a single patent or a portfolio. It covers ownership, administrative status, claim scope, patent families, related agreements, actual use of the technology and monetization opportunities.

It should answer four core questions: does the company own the rights? Are they in force and enforceable? Do they protect the technologies that currently create value? Are the cost and territorial scope still consistent with the relevant markets?

Why conduct a patent audit after filing?

Filing a patent starts a management phase. An audit moves the company from holding patents to managing them strategically, distinguishing core rights, peripheral patents, protection gaps and assets that may create value through licensing, assignment agreements or collaboration.

Technology roadmaps change: an initially secondary feature may become essential, while a historical patent may no longer cover the commercial product. IP audit and valuation therefore require regular alignment between law, technology and the business model.

For further information on the reasons for conducting a patent audit, we invite you to read our article: " Why conduct an audit of trademarks and patents? "

Why is a filed or granted patent not a static asset?

The filing or grant of a patent does not mark the end of the protection process. A patent must be monitored over time to ensure that it remains relevant in light of the company’s activities, technological developments and competitive environment.

Such monitoring also involves ensuring compliance with the main formalities required to keep the patent in force, in particular the payment of renewal fees to the INPI.

A patent should therefore not simply be retained in a portfolio: it should be regularly reassessed and integrated into an overall strategy for the protection, exploitation and enhancement of innovations.

What should be reviewed during a patent audit?

Ownership and chain of title

The first step is to verify the actual owner of the patent. Employee inventions are governed by the regime set out in Article L. 611-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code ; and the INPI stresses the importance of declaring employee inventions. For contractors, R&D partners or acquired businesses, the audit should verify assignments and the contractual chain, together with recordals required for third-party effect.

Validity and administrative status

The review covers filing and priority dates, renewal fees, deadlines, oppositions, limitations, licences and security interests. Official renewal-fee status and register extracts help reconcile internal records with public data.

Scope of the claims

The value of a patent depends on what its claims actually cover. A patent audit compares those claims with the product or process being exploited in order to identify unprotected features, overly narrow claims, potential design-around opportunities and, where appropriate, areas of vulnerability in the event of opposition or invalidity proceedings.

Business and territorial alignment

Each patent should be linked to a product, technology, R&D program or defensive objective. This mapping reveals unused rights, unprotected innovation and overlaps, while showing whether the protected countries still correspond to sales, manufacturing or competitive-risk territories.

Monetization opportunities

A patent may generate value through direct exploitation, licensing, sale, collaboration or its role as a barrier to entry. WIPO describes income, market and cost approaches to valuation. The audit prepares that economic valuation by first confirming the asset’s existence, ownership and exploitability.

When is a patent audit particularly useful?

A patent audit becomes especially important when third parties will scrutinize the portfolio or when its quality will influence a strategic decision, including:

• before a fundraising round, merger or acquisition, or asset sale;
• before a technology partnership, licence or co-development arrangement;
• before a product launch, to confirm that the available protection still matches the technology being commercialized;
• in the context of litigation, an infringement threat or a validity challenge;
• during a portfolio reorganization or a renewal-cost reduction program.

What benefits does a patent audit bring to a business?

A well-designed audit produces an action plan, not merely an inventory. It secures ownership, reduces administrative risk, aligns claim scope with the technology actually used and supports renewal-cost decisions. It also makes the portfolio clearer to management, investors and partners.

Most importantly, patents can be classified as rights to maintain and enforce, strengthen, license or sell, or no longer maintain. This prioritization supports a patent strategy aligned with the company’s actual trajectory.

Conclusion

A patent audit confirms that a portfolio remains legally robust, technically relevant, administratively controlled and economically useful. After filing, value depends on the quality of ongoing management as well as the original protection. Regular review turns the portfolio into a tool for risk control, negotiation and innovation value creation.

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.

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

Q&A

Does a patent audit replace a freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis?

A patent audit primarily assesses the quality and usefulness of the company’s own rights. An FTO analysis looks outward, identifying third-party patents that may restrict the commercialization of a product or process. The two exercises are complementary, particularly before a launch or investment transaction.

Can a granted patent still be considered weak during due diligence?

Grant creates an enforceable right but does not eliminate every later challenge. Due diligence may revisit the chain of title, claim scope, relevant prior art, pending proceedings and the fit between the patent and the technology presented as strategically important.

Can an imperfect chain of title be regularized after grant?

In many situations, assignments, confirmatory documents or register entries may still be completed, subject to the specific legal position and any rights already acquired by third parties. The purpose of the audit is to identify these gaps early enough to determine the appropriate corrective measures.

Should a patent be abandoned if it is not directly used in a product?

A patent that is not currently embodied in a product may still have defensive value, block design-arounds, protect future technology or support a licensing strategy. The renewal decision should compare that strategic utility with the cost of maintaining the right and the realistic prospects for exploitation or monetization.

How should a portfolio combining French, European, Unitary and international patent families be audited?

The review should proceed title by title and family by family, covering status, actual territorial coverage, deadlines, recorded ownership, applicable claims and future costs. A PCT application, a European patent validated in several states and a Unitary Patent do not have the same territorial effects or maintenance regime, so the audit map must distinguish each route.

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

Brazil is one of Latin America’s most dynamic markets, and trademark protection is a key strategic priority for both foreign and domestic companies. Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) faces a considerable volume of registration applications, which can significantly extend examination timelines. In light of this, INPI has introduced an accelerated examination mechanism known as the « trâmite prioritário de marcas ».

This mechanism, governed by several successive administrative orders and currently structured around a pilot project, allows certain applicants to obtain a registration decision much faster than under the standard procedure.

The Brazilian expedited examination procedure (“trâmite prioritário”): what is it?

The « trâmite prioritário » refers to an accelerated examination procedure for trademark registration applications filed with Brazil’s INPI. This mechanism allows certain applications, when the required conditions are met, to be examined under a priority order distinct from the one applicable to the standard procedure.

Legal framework

The regulatory framework for priority trademark processing in Brazil has evolved significantly in 2025 and 2026. The instruments currently in force are as follows:

Several earlier ordinances have been revoked (Nos. 28/2025, 29/2025, 39/2025), reflecting INPI’s intention to progressively refine this mechanism.

Objectives of the mechanism

Priority trademark processing pursues two complementary objectives:

• Facilitating the resolution of trademark conflicts and disputes;
• Accelerating processes that foster innovation and growth in Brazil.

This mechanism is part of the pilot project, whose implementation is subject to continuous evaluation for improvement purposes. INPI publishes weekly statistics to ensure transparent monitoring of the mechanism.

Eligibility requirements and conditions for accessing the Brazilian expedited examination procedure

Brazil’s IP Office distinguishes between several ways of accessing the accelerated examination procedure: some are available free of charge to specific categories of beneficiaries, while others fall within the scope of the pilot project and are based on strategic or public policy grounds.

Free-of-charge access to priority processing

Certain applicants are entitled to free access to priority processing under the law. These include:

• Elderly persons;
• Persons with disabilities;
• Persons with serious illnesses;
• Legal entities classified under the Inova Simples program.

For these categories, priority processing is available free of charge, upon submission of the required supporting documents.

Access to priority processing on strategic or public policy grounds

For other applicants, the pilot project provides various priority treatment options based on strategic objectives or public policy considerations. This priority treatment is not automatic: the applicant must fall within one of the 13 eligibility situations defined by Brazil’s INPI. These include in particular:

• An opposition based on a right of precedence;
• The need to obtain registration in order to unlock public funding;
• The existence of court proceedings concerning the sign;
• A good or service linked to a patent benefiting from priority examination;
• Status as a scientific, technological, and innovation institution;
• Participation in an INPI mentoring program;
• A situation of public interest, national emergency, or connection to a government program;
• The need to obtain registration in order to access an online marketplace;
• Membership in or representation of traditional peoples or communities, or family farming;
• Start-up status;
• Certain applications relating to the Madrid Protocol;
• The existence of a reciprocity agreement on priority treatment with Brazil;
• The need to obtain registration in order to secure an administrative authorisation, permit, or concession.

The complete list of these grounds, along with the supporting documents required for each, is set out in normative Ordinance INPI/PR No. 66/2026, available on the official website of Brazil’s INPI.

The number of applications admitted may also be limited by category and by applicant.

The applicable fee is:

• BRL 890.00 at the standard rate;
• BRL 445.00 after a 50% reduction, in particular for micro-enterprises, individual micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses, as well as certain teaching and research institutions and certain public bodies.

Government modality (federal events)

A specific modality exists for federal government entities whose trademarks risk being unduly appropriated due to their exposure during major events. This modality can only be activated by the Secretariat of Social Communication of the Presidency of the Republic (SECOM).

How to file a request for expedited examination in Brazil?

Prerequisites

To file a request for priority processing, applicants must have already filed a trademark registration application with Brazil’s INPI, or have a pending petition. The file number assigned upon initial filing is required for the following steps.

Procedure steps

Step 1: Issuing the GRU

The first step consists of issuing an official payment slip (« Guia de Recolhimento da União » or « GRU ») via the portal: https://meu.inpi.gov.br/pag/. Issuing this slip is mandatory even where the service is free of charge.

Step 2: Paying the GRU

The corresponding fee, where applicable, must be paid.

Step 3: Completing the online form

The priority processing request form is available at: https://gru.inpi.gov.br/emarcas/. Mandatory documents not already included in the file must be attached. The applicant must certify the accuracy of the information provided.

Step 4: Monitoring the application

INPI evaluates priority processing requests in accordance with Ordinance No. 08/2022 and the specific Ordinances No. 66/2026 and No. 67/2026. The decision is published in the Official Gazette of Brazil’s INPI.

Statistics and pilot project monitoring

INPI publishes updated statistics each week covering:

• The number of procedures completed;
• The average decision time;
• The decisions issued within each modality.

This data allows applicants to assess the effectiveness of the mechanism and provides INPI with a management tool as part of the pilot project’s continuous improvement.

This statistical transparency also sends a positive signal to foreign companies considering investing in trademark protection in Brazil: it demonstrates INPI’s commitment to modernising its processes and reducing examination timelines.

Conclusion

Priority trademark processing represents a concrete opportunity for companies seeking to accelerate the protection of their intangible assets in Brazil. Governed by ordinances recently updated in 2026, this mechanism is now structured around a pilot project subject to quotas, which calls for strategic anticipation on the part of applicants.

Dreyfus Law Firm supports its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters, offering personalised advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of attorneys specialising in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Is the accelerated Brazilian examination procedure available to foreign companies?

Yes. Any company, regardless of nationality, may file a request for priority processing provided it has a pending trademark registration application with Brazil’s INPI. The involvement of a local representative (attorney or industrial property counsel) is mandatory for foreign applicants.

2. Can Brazil’s accelerated examination procedure be combined with a filing via the Madrid System?

Madrid System allows Brazil to be designated in an international trademark application. Once the national application has been generated under the Madrid procedure, it is in principle possible to request priority processing for that application, subject to meeting the applicable conditions.

3. What happens if my priority examination request is rejected?

If the priority processing request is rejected by INPI, the trademark registration application does not disappear: it simply continues to be processed in the standard examination queue. In certain cases, a new request may be filed if the conditions are met at a later date.

4. What is the limit on the number of priority processing requests a single company may file?

Brazil’s INPI has set a cap of 10 priority processing requests per applicant. In addition, in 2026, INPI may receive up to 3,000 applications, split into two four-month periods of 1,500 applications each: from 1 May to 31 August, and from 1 September to 31 December. Within each period, at least 100 places are reserved for each of the priority-treatment eligibility grounds.

5. Must supporting documents be submitted in Portuguese?

Yes. Proceedings before Brazil’s INPI are conducted in Portuguese. All documents submitted in support of a priority processing request must be drafted or translated into Portuguese. Foreign companies must ensure the linguistic compliance of their file, which is a further reason to engage a local representative.

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

Introduction

The second phase of the reform of the European design law has applied since July 1st, 2026. It follows the first series of changes that entered into force on May 1st, 2025 and completes the most significant modernisation of the European design protection system in more than twenty years.

This new phase is based in particular on codified Regulation (EU) 2026/715, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/137 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/138. It is also accompanied by new Guidelines issued by the EUIPO, applicable since 1July 1st, 2026.

The reform adapts design protection to contemporary forms of creation, including digital interfaces, animations and complex products, while also amending several rules relating to filing, the representation of designs and invalidity proceedings.

Up to ten static views to represent a design

Applicants may continue to represent their designs by means of static views in JPEG format. However, the maximum number of views permitted for a single design has increased from seven to ten.

This change provides greater flexibility to represent a product from different angles or to draw attention to specific details of its appearance. It may be particularly useful for complex products, packaging, spare parts or creations whose characteristics are only visible from a particular perspective.

The increase to ten views also facilitates coordination between EU filings and applications filed in countries that already accept a larger number of representations.

New formats for protecting digital and animated creations

The reform introduces two new forms of representation:

• a dynamic representation, corresponding to a three-dimensional digital reproduction that may be filed in OBJ or STL format;
• an animated representation, submitted as a video file in MP4 format.

Only one dynamic or animated representation may be filed for each design. These new formats make it possible to protect complex products, graphical user interfaces, movements, visual transitions and animated sequences that cannot always be adequately represented through static images.

However, these new possibilities should not lead applicants to file 3D files or videos systematically. The format chosen directly contributes to defining the subject matter of the protection. An animation should therefore only be filed where the movement or transition genuinely forms part of the creation that the company seeks to protect.

One type of representation per design

For each design, the applicant must choose between a static, dynamic or animated representation. These different formats cannot be combined within a single design.

However, a multiple application may include several designs relating to the same product. A company could therefore file:

• a first design represented through several static views;
• a second design represented through a three-dimensional file;
• a third design represented through an animation.

This strategy makes it possible to seek complementary forms of protection, provided that each representation independently complies with the applicable filing requirements.

It may also be useful where the company intends to claim priority from the EU filing in other countries. Not all national offices necessarily accept dynamic or animated files. The parallel filing of static views may therefore help secure future international extensions.

Certain errors may now be corrected

Since 1 July 2026, representations may be amended in respect of immaterial details, either before or after registration, without losing the original filing date.

This may make it possible, for example, to introduce a neutral background or to remove or disclaim an element that is so insignificant that it would go unnoticed by the informed user.

However, this possibility does not allow the applicant to substantially alter the design filed or to extend the scope of protection after filing. Its practical usefulness will therefore largely depend on how the EUIPO interprets the concept of “immaterial details”.

In practice, applicants should not regard this procedure as a means of correcting every error affecting their representations. Careful preparation of the filing remains essential, since a significant inconsistency or the omission of an essential feature may not be capable of correction.

Invalidity applications must be prepared more thoroughly from the outset

The reform also strengthens the requirement to present arguments and evidence at the beginning of cancellation proceedings.

An application for a declaration of invalidity must now set out precisely the facts, legal grounds and evidence on which it relies.

This change is intended to limit insufficiently substantiated claims and accelerate the handling of cases. In particular, uncontested invalidity applications based on a lack of novelty or individual character may be processed as a matter of priority.

Rights holders must therefore prepare their case in advance by identifying the earlier designs, establishing the date and circumstances of their disclosure, explaining their relevance and presenting a structured visual comparison.

Where the invalidity application is based on an earlier trade mark that has been registered for at least five years, the owner of the contested design may, under certain conditions, request proof of genuine use of that trade mark. The system therefore brings design proceedings closer to certain rules already applicable in trade mark matters.

New procedural possibilities

The unauthorised use of certain emblems, flags, coats of arms and official signs protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention now constitutes a ground for refusal that may be raised ex officio.

In addition, the continuation of proceedings in design matters is now available in respect of certain missed time limits. The request must be filed within two months following the expiry of the relevant time limit and is subject to the payment of an official fee.

Lastly, the EUIPO may also revoke a decision or a recordal in the Register containing a manifest error attributable to the Office, in particular where it failed to take into account a rule of law or a decisive circumstance. Such revocation may take place within one year from the date of the relevant decision or entry.

What should businesses do since July 1st 2026?

• review their internal filing procedures to take account of the new static, three-dimensional and animated formats;
• identify digital assets that may be eligible for protection,
• choose the representation format according to the subject matter actually claimed,
• anticipate international extensions by checking whether the representations used can serve as a basis for priority claims in the relevant jurisdictions;
• verify the consistency of the views and visual disclaimers before filing;

Conclusion

The second phase of the reform makes the European design law better suited to current technological and commercial realities and provides businesses with new opportunities to protect their creations.

However, this greater flexibility is accompanied by an increased need for precision. Businesses should therefore review their filing practices and integrate the protection of digital creations into their broader intellectual property strategy.

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

Q&A

How long is a European Union design protected?

Registration is valid for five years and may be renewed for five-year periods, up to a total of twenty-five years.

Does a design have to be registered to be protected in the European Union?

No. An unregistered design may be protected for three years from its first disclosure in the European Union, but this protection is more limited.

Can a company introduce a product before filing a design application?

Yes, a twelve-month grace period may apply. However, it is still preferable to file the application before any public disclosure.

Who owns a design created by an employee?

It depends on the circumstances of the creation, the applicable law, and the contracts. Ownership must therefore be clearly defined.

Does a European design allow a company to take action against any similar creation?

No. The analysis is based, in particular, on the overall impression made on an informed user and on the claimed features.

Can different representation formats be combined?

No. For a single design, the applicant must choose between static views, a 3D file or an animation. However, different formats may be used within a multiple application.

Can a representation be corrected after filing?

Yes, but only in respect of immaterial details. The correction must neither substantially alter the design nor extend the scope of protection.

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.

Introduction

Since August 12, 2026, Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) has generally applied throughout the European Union, subject to provisions governed by later implementation dates. It applies to companies that sell products with packaging, regardless of the industry in question, including food products, cosmetics, clothing, electronic equipment, toys, industrial goods, as well as the packaging itself. EPR compliance for packaging is no longer merely an environmental obligation that takes effect after the sale. For online platforms falling within the relevant rules, it has become part of the gateway to the sales channel itself.

Article 45 requires the online platforms concerned to obtain, before allowing a producer to use their services, information demonstrating the producer’s registration in the EPR register of the Member State where the consumer is located, together with a self-certification confirming compliance with packaging EPR obligations. Platforms must also make best efforts to assess the reliability and completeness of that information, including by checking available public databases or online interfaces. The practical effect is clear. An EPR documentation failure can now become a direct market-access issue.

Why has packaging EPR compliance become a marketplace access control?

Article 45 turns online platforms into compliance gatekeepers

The key change is procedural. EPR compliance is no longer checked only through environmental authorities, producer responsibility organisations or national reporting systems. It may now be examined at the very point at which a seller seeks access to an online market.

The PPWR does not establish a universal rule automatically removing every undocumented listing on August 12, 2026. Actual restriction or suspension procedures will also depend on the platform’s compliance process and contractual terms. Nevertheless, a platform subject to Article 45 cannot indefinitely disregard unreliable or incomplete registration information when EU law expressly requires it to collect and check such information.

There is still no single EU-wide EPR registration number

Although the PPWR harmonises the framework, it does not immediately replace national producer registers with one European number. Identifying the relevant EPR obligation requires an assessment of where packaging or packaged products are first made available in a Member State and where the packaging is expected to become waste. Cross-border e-commerce therefore requires a country-by-country and supply-chain analysis.

For distance sales, holding a registration in the seller’s home Member State does not, by itself, constitute an EU-wide EPR passport. This explains why Article 45 focuses on the relevant registration in the Member State where the consumer resides.

In France, the IDU, authorised representation and data consistency require immediate attention

The French IDU must cover the correct legal entity and EPR stream

Under Article L. 541-10-13 of the French Environmental Code, producers subject to EPR must register and receive a unique identifier, or IDU. ADEME specifies that an IDU is assigned by EPR sector. A company holding an identifier for electrical equipment, for example, cannot rely on it as proof of registration for packaging.

The IDU must also be disclosed in the general terms and conditions of sale or another contractual document supplied to the buyer and, where the producer operates a website, under conditions comparable to those applicable to statutory website information.

France already imposed specific obligations on electronic interfaces under Article L. 541-10-9 of the Environmental Code. The PPWR now reinforces this approach at EU level by introducing an express pre-access verification mechanism.

Foreign sellers must review their representative arrangements

Since July 10, 2026, Article L. 541-10-9-1 of the French Environmental Code requires a person not established in France but subject to French EPR obligations to appoint, in writing, a natural or legal person established in France to ensure compliance with the obligations covered by the mandate, subject to the statutory exception concerning certain electronic interfaces.

At EU level, an important legislative development must not be confused with existing law. The Commission has proposed suspending until January 1, 2035 certain PPWR authorised-representative requirements for producers established in one Member State and operating cross-border. As at August 13, 2026, procedure 2025/0395(COD) remains legislative work in progress; the proposed suspension cannot yet be treated as applicable law.

Why does the PPWR matter to trademark owners and packaging strategies?

“Manufacturer” and EPR “producer” are separate legal concepts

For international groups, licensors and trademark owners, looking only at the company physically producing the goods can lead to the wrong conclusion. Commission guidance distinguishes the manufacturer, responsible for relevant packaging compliance obligations, from the producer, which bears EPR responsibilities in the Member State concerned. Depending on the supply chain, both roles may be held by the same entity or by different entities.

Where packaging is designed or manufactured under a company’s own name or trademark and the PPWR criteria are satisfied, the brand owner may therefore fall within the manufacturer analysis. Licence, manufacturing and distribution agreements should clearly address who determines the materials, dimensions, artwork and other packaging characteristics. Contractual drafting, however, cannot override a statutory qualification imposed by the PPWR.

For further background, see our analysis of the impact of packaging regulation on trademark and design owners.

Packaging placed on the market after 12 August also requires review

The immediate compliance exercise goes beyond EPR registration. Article 15 requirements include information allowing packaging and its manufacturer to be identified, such as a type, batch, serial or other identification element and the manufacturer’s name, trade name or registered trademark and relevant contact details, under the conditions laid down by the Regulation.

Adding such information, including through QR codes where permitted, can alter packaging artwork and should therefore be coordinated with trademark, design and copyright portfolios.

What should companies audit now to prevent online sales disruption?

We recommend treating PPWR and EPR compliance as a market-access audit:

• map products, packaging formats, destination countries and sales channels;
• identify, for each flow, the manufacturer, EPR producer, importer, distributor, trademark owner and seller-account entity;
• verify national registrations and, in France, the correct packaging IDU;
• reconcile EPR declarations with actual volumes and confirm outstanding contributions;
• review the need for and scope of representative mandates;
• prepare a marketplace evidence file containing registration evidence, PRO certificates, self-certification, declarations and supporting records;
• align company names, addresses and producer identities across registers, PRO records, terms of sale, invoices and seller accounts;
• review packaging traceability and amend licence, manufacturing, import and distribution agreements where required.

What are the risks of failing to demonstrate packaging EPR compliance?

The most immediate risk is commercial: seller onboarding may fail, further evidence may be requested, an offer may be restricted, or sales may be interrupted in accordance with the platform’s applicable procedures. The PPWR therefore turns an environmental compliance issue into a potential product-availability and brand-exploitation risk.

French administrative exposure is separate. Article L. 541-9-5 of the Environmental Code provides, in particular, for an administrative fine of up to €30,000 for specified failures relating to registration, reporting or disclosure of the IDU. The statutory enforcement regime also provides for a daily penalty of up to €20,000 in relevant circumstances.

Conclusion

The PPWR applicable since August 12, 2026 changes the compliance sequence. For online platforms within scope, businesses can no longer assume that packaging EPR formalities may simply be regularised after launch. They must be able to identify the correct producer, evidence its registration, provide consistent self-certification and substantiate compliance before an administrative discrepancy becomes an obstacle to sales.

Protecting a trademark now also requires protecting the legal ability to place the branded product on the market.

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

Does the PPWR apply to sales made through a company’s own e-commerce website?

Yes. The producer’s EPR obligations remain applicable. However, the specific prior-verification mechanism applicable to intermediary online platforms does not apply in the same way to a seller marketing products directly through its own website.

Are B2B sales subject to the marketplace verification mechanism under the PPWR?

The specific mechanism under Article 45 targets platforms enabling consumers to conclude distance contracts with producers. A business operating exclusively on a B2B basis must nevertheless comply with the other PPWR and EPR obligations applicable to it.

Are products distributed free of charge covered by the PPWR?

Yes. The concept of making packaging available also covers packaging supplied free of charge in the course of a commercial activity. Samples and promotional campaigns must therefore be included in the compliance assessment.

Do fulfilment service providers also have verification obligations?

Yes, in certain circumstances. The PPWR also imposes specific obligations on fulfilment service providers when they enter into contractual relationships with producers.

Does an EPR contribution paid in one Member State remain valid if the product is ultimately marketed in another?

Not necessarily. Where contributions have been paid in one Member State but the packaging is subsequently made available for the first time in another, a reimbursement mechanism may need to be applied, as EPR obligations must ultimately be fulfilled in the relevant Member State.

Does the PPWR also apply to packaging for products imported from outside the European Union?

Yes. The Regulation applies to packaging placed on the EU market, including packaging accompanying products imported from third countries. The origin of the product therefore does not exempt the operator from PPWR and EPR compliance obligations.

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.