News

Introduction

Creative content generated by employees (texts, marketing materials, visuals, training content, designs, photographs, scripts) constitutes a substantial portion of a company’s intangible assets. Under French law, however, an employment contract does not, of itself, automatically transfer copyright to the employer: the work vests in the employee upon creation, and only an express contractual arrangement may operate as an effective assignment.

This author-centric approach (the so-called personalist tradition of French copyright law) sits uneasily with the economic logic of a business which finances, organizes and intends to freely exploit its creative output.

A structural legal risk, underestimated by businesses

Many businesses mistakenly assume that a general clause in the employment contract is sufficient to vest in them ownership of the works created by their employees. Article L.111-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code lays down an unambiguous principle: authorship vests in the natural person who creates the work, and the existence of an employment contract does not derogate from that rule.

This principle has very practical implications for the transfer of rights. In practice, French copyright law strictly regulates the mechanisms by which an employer may obtain the right to exploit works created by an employee. Three key limitations thus prevent any automatic or blanket appropriation of works produced within the context of the employment relationship.

The first safeguard is the prohibition on the global assignment of future works (Article L.131-1). A clause whereby the employee would assign, as a block and in advance, the entirety of the economic rights in any works he or she might create during the term of the contract is null and void. The text proscribes precisely what the business would need: a general and anticipatory transfer.

The second is the strict formal requirements for assignments (Article L.131-3). Any deed of assignment must specify each of the rights assigned and define the scope of exploitation as to its extent, purpose, place and duration.

The third is the requirement of proportional remuneration calculated on the receipts of exploitation (Article L.131-4), as the lump-sum remuneration is limited.

Workaround mechanisms: genuine usefulness, acknowledged limitations

➤ The collective work: a powerful tool, conditional

Qualifying certain creations as collective works within the meaning of Articles L.113-2 and L.113-5 IPC enables the employer to be vested as the original rightholder: the rights arise ab initio in the person (often a legal entity) who took the initiative for the work and under whose name it is disclosed.

Three cumulative conditions must be satisfied: an initiative and editorial direction by the company, a plurality of contributors, and the merger of the contributions into an inseparable whole. General clauses purporting that “all works produced by employees are collective works” are ineffective.

The robustness of this strategy must moreover be assessed in light of European case law. In this respect, the CJEU stated, in Soulier and Doke (November 16, 2016, C‑301/15) and ONB (March 6, 2025, C‑575/23), held that any exception to the author’s individual consent must be strictly construed.

In Soulier and Doke, the Court struck down a French mechanism allowing the digital exploitation of out-of-print works without the authors’ prior express authorization, emphasizing that an author’s consent to the exploitation of his or her work cannot be presumed except under particularly stringent conditions.

The ONB judgment extends this reasoning by reaffirming that collective management or exploitation mechanisms cannot undermine the fundamental principle that authors must retain control over the use of their works, save where a derogation is clearly provided for and narrowly construed.

For more information on the ONB ruling, please see our previous article.

➤ The right of preference clause: a theoretical alternative

The right of preference clause, provided for in Article L.132-4 within the framework of publishing contracts, allows a publisher to reserve, in advance, a right of preference over the author’s future works. It is one of the rare doors opened by the legislator to a forward-looking grasp of works yet to be created.

Its transposition to the employment context, however, remains problematic. The provision is designed for the publishing industry; the conditions are strict (a clearly defined genre, a cap of five works or five years from the initial contract); and the case-law interpretation is restrictive, the clause being treated as a derogation from the prohibition under L.131-1. The exercise of the preference work-by-work also makes the instrument unwieldy for continuous creative production. More frequently cited in scholarship than implemented in practice, the right of preference clause does not constitute an operational solution for the broader need to secure rights.

➤ The collective bargaining agreement: a framework, not a substitute for individual consent

Another avenue consists in organizing the assignment by way of a collective bargaining agreement. The legislator has provided for this in respect of professional journalists (Article L.132-40).

Several obstacles, however, stand in the way of extending this logic: the prohibition under Article L.131-1 remains, even where a collective bargaining agreement is in place; the agreement itself is open to challenge, by non-signatory unions or through proceedings against a ministerial extension order; and, above all, European case law (Soulier and Doke, ONB) requires individual, free and informed consent of the author. A collective bargaining agreement may therefore frame the terms of the assignment (scope, remuneration, procedures), but does not dispense with the requirement to obtain the individual written consent of each author employee: it complements the individual framework, it does not replace it.

Individual assignment: the central avenue, provided it is properly drafted

Absent any fully satisfactory alternative mechanism, the contractual assignment remains the principal route, provided it is drafted with rigor.

➤ Defining the subject matter of the assignment with precision

The first requirement is to confine the assignment to the works created in the performance of an express creative mission, as defined by the job description, the employment contract or successive mission letters. The clause thereby targets only those works falling within that mission, rather than “all creations” of the employee.

➤ Coupling the assignment with a periodic confirmation mechanism

The second architecture, complementary to the first, consists in stipulating in the employment contract an assignment clause covering the works produced in the performance of duties, supplemented by the periodic signing of a recapitulative document identifying the works created and confirming the assignment.

Remuneration: the linchpin of the entire framework

Litigation experience shows that the strength of an assignment turns largely on remuneration. Article L.131-4 lays down the principle of remuneration calculated proportionally to the receipts of exploitation, lump-sum remuneration being admitted only in narrowly defined exceptional cases which do not expressly cover assignments made within the framework of an employment contract.

In practice, it is preferable to provide for two-tier remuneration (a fixed component plus a variable component proportional to receipts) or, failing that, to identify in the contract the portion of salary corresponding to the assignment, including in respect of exploitations occurring after the termination of the employment relationship. Often reduced to a question of formal compliance, the financial dimension is in fact the surest lever for stabilizing the framework: a properly remunerated assignment is less likely to be challenged and is more easily defended.

Conclusion

In matters relating to employee-created works, French copyright law remains shaped by a strong author-centric approach, which sits uneasily with companies’ need for continuous and large-scale exploitation of creative outputs. Neither the collective work doctrine, nor rights of first refusal, nor collective bargaining agreements currently make it possible to dispense entirely with the requirement for the author’s individual consent, specifically defined and properly framed.

In this context, the effective securitization of rights rests primarily on a robust contractual strategy: narrowly tailored assignments, regularly renewed or confirmed, and supported by clearly identifiable and credible remuneration provisions.

Dreyfus law firm assists its clients in securing creations arising from employment relationships, combining contractual engineering and litigation expertise to build frameworks tailored to each industry.

Dreyfus law firm works in partnership with a global network of lawyers specialized in intellectual property.

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

FAQ

1. May the qualification of a work as a collective work be stipulated in the employment contract?
It may, but it will not be binding on the court: the qualification is a matter to be ascertained, not declared. It presupposes an initiative by the company, a plurality of contributors and a merger of contributions, elements which a mere declaratory clause cannot supply.

2. May the employer freely modify a work created by an employee?
Even after the assignment of economic rights, the employee retains his or her moral rights, including the right to respect for the integrity of the work. Significant alterations (rewriting, visual modification, change in the context of exploitation) may therefore be challenged where they prejudice the spirit or integrity of the creation.

3. May an employee still claim authorship even where the work is exploited under the company’s name?
The fact that a work is disclosed or exploited under the employer’s brand, logo or trade name does not automatically deprive the employee of authorship status. In the event of a dispute, courts will examine who actually made the original creative choices giving rise to the work. This issue is particularly sensitive in relation to marketing content, communication materials and collaborative creations.

4. What happens to works exploited after termination of the employment contract?
The assignment may continue to take effect beyond termination, but only where an express stipulation provides for this. Failing that, the departing employee may claim additional remuneration in respect of subsequent exploitations, particularly where the original assignment was lump-sum and was justified, in part, by the duration of the employment.

5. May a collective bargaining agreement impose the assignment of authors’ rights of employees?
No, not within a logic of global and anticipatory assignment. It may frame the terms (rhythm, scope, remuneration), but does not dispense with obtaining the individual consent of each author employee.

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

Introduction

Obtaining a Plant Variety Right (PVR) in the European Union from material originating in a third country is not a mere paperwork exercise. For a non-EU breeder or seed company, the principal risk is not that the variety itself proves “unfit”, but that the project fails before the PVR examination even begins, for want of regulatory anticipation.

In the majority of unsuccessful cases, the same root cause is at work: applicants begin by filing a PVR application in the belief that the rest will follow, whereas, in respect of material originating outside the EU, the filing is merely the culmination of a far broader process.

That process presupposes a number of prerequisites, such as authorization to enter the EU, the traceability of the material’s origin, and compliance with phytosanitary requirements.

This article examines, step by step, the preliminary stages preceding a PVR application where the material in question originates from countries outside the European Union.

Rules governing the introduction of plant material from non-EU jurisdiction into the European territory

Before contemplating a “Plant Variety Right”, one simple question must be addressed: is it lawful to introduce the plant material into the European Union, and on what terms?

• Factors governing the entry of material into the EU

The analysis turns on several cumulative factors, derived in particular from the lists and requirements set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072:

• Species (apple, rose, cereals, vine, etc.): not all species present the same level of risk. Certain plants are particularly susceptible to, or vectors of, regulated diseases.
• Country of origin: certain countries are deemed to present a high phytosanitary risk owing to the presence of harmful organisms therein which are absent from European territory.
• Type of material: the nature of the material plays a decisive role, since it influences the likelihood of disease transmission. Seeds, for instance, present a lower risk than a whole plant.
• Risk profile: the analysis also takes into account the harmful organisms regulated by the European Union. These include parasites, viruses, bacteria and fungi liable to cause serious damage to European crops.

When these parameters are combined, three typical situations emerge:

• Importation is authorized, subject to compliance with general rules (phytosanitary certificate, notification through TRACES NT, and clearance through a Border Control Post).
• Importation is authorized subject to enhanced conditions (additional declarations on the phytosanitary certificate, specific treatments such as disinfection, or mandatory pre-shipment analyses).
• Importation is directly prohibited.

• Common conditions applicable to any introduction of non-EU plant material into the EU

Although several import scenarios exist (authorized, conditional, direct refusal), all must satisfy certain regulatory requirements. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 establishes the framework for protective measures against pests of plants and makes the entry of plants conditional upon:

• An official phytosanitary certificate issued by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of the country of origin (in France, the Organisation nationale de la protection des végétaux), recognized in accordance with international standards (IPPC), certifying that the plant material complies with EU phytosanitary requirements.
• A notification through the European TRACES NT platform, which enables sensitive consignments such as plants and plant materials to be notified and traced.
• Mandatory clearance through a Border Control Post (BCP).

• The phytosanitary certificate

Securing a phytosanitary certificate is no mere administrative formality: it presupposes compliance with stringent upstream conditions, controlled by the competent authority of the country of origin.

In practice, several cumulative requirements must be met:

• Official inspection of the material: the plant material must be inspected by the National Plant Protection Organization in order to verify the absence of regulated harmful organisms.
• Traceability of origin: the origin of the material must be clearly identified and documented (production site, growing conditions, treatment history).
• Compliance with EU-specific requirements: certain species or origins call for additional declarations on the certificate (for example, freedom from a specified pest, or compliance with particular cultivation conditions).
• Performance of pre-shipment tests or treatments: depending on the case, laboratory analyses, phytosanitary treatments or specific procedures may be required prior to export.
• Documentary consistency: the information appearing on the certificate (species, quantity, origin, type of material) must correspond strictly to the consignment shipped.

In practice, the phytosanitary certificate is therefore the outcome of an upstream control process, and not a mere declaratory document.

Any non-conformity — whether an incomplete certificate, a missing entry, or an inconsistency between the documents and the material itself — may give rise to immediate consequences upon entry into EU territory, including refusal of entry, detention or quarantine, or even the destruction of the material in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.

• The customs dimension

The introduction of plant material into the European Union is governed by the general regulatory framework laid down in the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013). In practical terms, the operator must:

• Lodge a customs declaration in compliance with the Union Customs Code, selecting the appropriate procedure (release for free circulation, temporary admission, etc.) according to the project (trials, quarantine, subsequent commercial exploitation);
• Determine the appropriate tariff code (TARIC) for the type of material concerned (seeds, plants, in vitro cultures, etc.);
• Calculate the customs duties and import VAT.

In practice, the phytosanitary and customs aspects operate as two parallel filters: a consignment may be compliant on the phytosanitary front but blocked at customs (and vice versa). For a non-EU operator, it is therefore essential to prepare a coherent file in which the phytosanitary and customs information dovetail without contradiction.

The case of imports into the EU subject to enhanced conditions

In this scenario, the material remains admissible into the territory of the Union, but its introduction is subject to compliance with specific requirements set out in Annex VII of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, which vary according to the species, the origin and the phytosanitary risk profile. These requirements fall, principally, into three categories.

They take the form, in the first place, of additional declarations to be entered on the phytosanitary certificate, by which the NPPO of the country of origin attests that a specific phytosanitary condition is satisfied. By way of illustration, plants for planting figuring among the hosts of Xylella fastidiosa may enter the Union only where the certificate attests, in accordance with the options provided for, that the area or the production site is recognized as free from the organism, that the site is physically protected against the introduction of vectors, or that the plants have been subjected there to regular official inspections coupled with analyses.

They may also take the form of pre-shipment treatments. In such cases, admissibility is conditional upon the application, prior to dispatch, of technical measures laid down by the regulation, such as cold treatment under a specified temperature and duration regime for fruits of Citrus sinensis Pers. The treatment applied must be expressly stated on the phytosanitary certificate, in the section reserved for disinfestation or disinfection.

They may, lastly, consist of pre-shipment laboratory analyses, where Annex VII requires official sampling and diagnosis prior to dispatch in order to confirm the absence of a specified organism in the lot concerned. The results must be contemporaneous with the consignment and traceable to the lot dispatched, failing which documentary non-conformity will arise.

These requirements are implemented upstream, in the country of origin, under the responsibility of the NPPO, and are verified upon clearance through the Border Control Post on the basis of the phytosanitary certificate together with documentary, identity and physical checks.

The hypothesis of an importation prohibited within the territory of the European Union

Where direct importation is impossible, quarantine may become the gateway to the European Union.

• What is plant quarantine?

Quarantine is the holding of plant material in an approved facility, under the supervision of the competent authorities, in order to verify the absence of regulated pests and diseases, where the material is introduced for scientific, trial or breeding purposes, prior to any subsequent movement within the European Union.

In practice, the process unfolds in several stages:

• Prior reservation of a place at a quarantine station.
• Reception of the material and, where applicable, performance of technical operations (grafting, multiplication, etc.).
• A series of phytosanitary analyses and inspections.
• Isolation and surveillance for a period generally ranging between one and two years.
• Release from quarantine, where everything is compliant, allowing transfer of the material to a DUS (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability) trial site within the EU.
• The need for an LOA.

In schemes involving quarantine in France, the central instrument is, in most cases, the Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued by the competent authority. It is an official document evidencing the agreement of the phytosanitary authorities to the introduction, within a strictly controlled framework, of plant material regarded as sensitive.

Securing such an official document presupposes:

• The reservation of quarantine places at the approved station.
• The compilation of a technical file detailing the species, type of material, origin, known phytosanitary status, intended use, and so forth.
• Discussions with the phytosanitary authorities to ensure that the conditions of containment and monitoring are deemed sufficient.

The LOA authorizes the importation of the material to the designated quarantine station and governs the conditions of its subsequent movement within the EU once the controls have been lifted (notably to DUS trial sites). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/829 specifies the conditions for the derogation and for movements of plants for scientific, trial or breeding purposes provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, and provides the legal basis for obtaining such a Letter of Authorisation.

It bears emphasizing, however, that the LOA is not to be conflated with an import authorization in the strict sense: it constitutes a circumscribed derogation enabling introduction into quarantine, without prejudice to compliance with the other applicable regulatory requirements, in particular as regards phytosanitary certification and controls at points of entry.

• Practical implications for the PVR

Quarantine is a key regulatory step governing the introduction of plant material, principally for scientific, trial or breeding purposes, and not for direct placing on the market in the European Union. It is intended to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms and to verify the phytosanitary status of the material before any subsequent movement.

• It may, in certain cases, allow the introduction of material that would otherwise be prohibited from direct importation.
• It significantly extends timelines, often by at least one growing cycle.
• It may call for additional material (rootstocks, controls), which is itself subject to the phytosanitary requirements.
• It carries an element of uncertainty, since the material may be refused if regulated organisms are detected.

Within a PVR project involving material of non-EU origin, integrating quarantine into the planning phase from the outset is decisive: this is, in many cases, what makes the difference between a theoretical filing and a right that is genuinely capable of exploitation.

Conclusion

Securing plant variety protection in Europe from material originating outside the EU is, first and foremost, not a question of paperwork but of regulatory preparation. Anticipating territorial access, securing the lawfulness of the origin, and organizing robust traceability now lie at the heart of the strategy underlying any PVR application.

A successful project is one in which the timetable of DUS trials is aligned with these constraints, and in which each stage of the introduction of the material can be evidenced. On that condition, the certificate obtained will not merely be valid, but truly enforceable in practice.

Dreyfus law firm assists clients in the management of complex intellectual property matters, providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the integral protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus law firm works in partnership with a global network of lawyers specialized in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Can DUS trials be undertaken before quarantine is lifted?
So long as quarantine has not been lifted, the material remains confined and is legally unavailable for the trials.

2. Can an error in the LOA stall a project?
Yes, an inconsistency (species, quantity, origin, intended use) may result in refusal of entry, detention of the material, or even its destruction.

3. Does the LOA cover the technical operations carried out in quarantine (grafting, multiplication)?
Not directly: it authorizes the introduction, but the technical operations must be set out in the protocol approved with the station and the authorities.

4. Can a PVR project be secured before the material to be introduced has been precisely identified?
Only with great difficulty. The requirements (phytosanitary, LOA, quarantine) depend heavily on the precise type of material, which makes any approximate planning hazardous.

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

Introduction

The integration of artificial intelligence into creative processes is redefining the traditional boundaries of copyright law. Where a work is generated, in whole or in part, by an algorithmic tool, a fundamental question arises: how can such creation be legally secured and how can rights therein be assigned?

Under French law, the protection of a copyrighted work is based on a core criterion: originality, understood as the expression of the personality of a human author. The involvement of artificial intelligence introduces direct uncertainty regarding the ownership of rights, and consequently their assignment. In practice, only a work in which human contribution is identifiable and demonstrable may be exploited as a legal asset.

An AI-assisted work may be secured and assigned, provided that a rigorous approach is implemented, structured around legal qualification, proof of the creative process, and enhanced contractual safeguards.

Understanding the Legal Qualification of an AI-Assisted Work

French copyright law is grounded in a fundamental principle set out in Article L113-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code: only an original work reflecting the personality of its author may be protected. This requirement necessarily implies the involvement of a natural person. Artificial intelligence, as a tool, cannot therefore be a holder of rights.

This position is now firmly supported by international case law, from which two converging principles may be derived:

• In the United States: Thaler v. Perlmutter (No. 23-5233). The US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia (2025) held that a work generated without human intervention cannot benefit from copyright protection. The US Supreme Court (2026) declined to review the decision, thereby confirming the principle that the author must be a human being.

• In Europe: Prague Court — T 336/23 (DALL·E image). : protection of copyright was denied due to the absence of an identifiable human author. Key takeaway: even where human involvement is asserted, it must be concretely demonstrated.

However, there are circumstances in which copyright may be recognized in favor of the individual generating the work. This requires that AI be used purely as a tool serving a creative process. In such cases, qualification as a “work of the mind” remains possible. This presupposes that the user does not limit themselves to a generic instruction, but rather plays a decisive role in the conception, direction, and finalization of the work.

A common example in the design and communication sectors illustrates this distinction: a visual automatically generated from a simple prompt will be difficult to protect, whereas a creation enhanced through iterations, artistic adjustments, and substantial refinements may be recognized as original.

Securing the Creation: Demonstrating the Human Creative Role

The legal security of an AI-assisted work primarily relies on evidence. In the event of a dispute, the issue will not be to prove the existence of the work, but rather to demonstrate that its author exercised a decisive creative role.

From this perspective, compiling an evidentiary record becomes an essential reflex. This involves documenting the entire creative process, from initial prompts to the final version. Iterations, choices made, modifications introduced, and artistic arbitrations all constitute elements capable of establishing the imprint of the author’s personality.

This requirement has been confirmed by several recent European decisions, which reiterate that copyright protection presupposes proof of an identifiable human creative contribution. The Court of Justice of the European Union first held in CJEU, 16 July 2009, C 5/08, Infopaq International A/S that originality implies the author’s own intellectual creation expressed through free and creative choices, and further clarified this standard in CJEU, 11 June 2020, C 833/18, Brompton Bicycle. In practice, the absence of sufficient evidence of a human creative role leads national courts to deny the claimed protection, in particular where the work has been generated using an automated tool or artificial intelligence.

At the same time, securing the work requires a rigorous analysis of the tools used. The terms and conditions of AI platforms play a decisive role. Some allow unrestricted commercial exploitation, while others limit rights or reserve certain prerogatives. A transfer of rights can only be valid if the assignor is themselves the holder of the rights they purport to transfer.

Finally, regulatory compliance constitutes an essential foundation. Compliance with GDPR and forthcoming requirements under the AI Act directly contributes to the legal security of the work. A creation produced within a non-compliant framework may see its economic value significantly undermined.

Organizing the Assignment of Rights in an AI-Assisted Work

The assignment of copyright is strictly governed by articles L.131-2 to L.131-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code. This formalism, already demanding under “traditional” copyrighted work , becomes particularly strategic in the context of artificial intelligence.

Before any assignment, it is essential to verify that the work is indeed protectable. This involves identifying sufficient human contribution, ensuring compatibility with the AI tool’s terms of use, and having a robust evidentiary record.

The assignment agreement must then comply with legal requirements, notably the precise definition of the rights assigned, their duration, their territorial scope, and their intended use. However, in the context of an AI-assisted work, this formalism must be supplemented by specific clauses.

It is essential to explicitly mention the use of artificial intelligence and to describe the role of the human creator. This transparency secures the contractual relationship and prevents any subsequent dispute regarding ownership of rights. The agreement must also provide for a traceability obligation, ensuring the availability of evidentiary elements in the event of litigation.

Particular attention must be paid to the warranty of quiet enjoyment. In the AI context, this warranty must be strengthened to cover specific risks. The first risk is the absence of protection. A work that does not involve any identifiable human intervention is freely exploitable, which deprives its creator of any competitive advantage. The second, more complex, risk is that of legal contamination. Indeed, AI models are trained on datasets that may include copyright-protected works. This situation may give rise to infringement risks, in particular where there is similarity with pre-existing works.

The issue of remuneration also requires careful analysis. The principle of proportional remuneration may conflict with the difficulty of isolating the human contribution within a hybrid work. In practice, a lump-sum remuneration is often accepted, provided it is supported by coherent economic justification.

Finally, the inclusion of clauses relating to technological developments in AI tools allows anticipation of rapid changes in these technologies and provides a legal framework for future creations.

Anticipating Legal Risks Related to the Exploitation of AI-Generated Works

The exploitation of a work created using artificial intelligence exposes stakeholders to several major risks that must be anticipated from the creation phase.

The first risk is the absence of protection. A work lacking identifiable human intervention may be freely exploited, depriving its creator of any competitive advantage.

The second risk lies in weakness of the evidentiary record. Even where there is a genuine creative contribution, the absence of traceability and documentation of the creation process may, in practice, undermine any attempt to assert copyright over the AI-generated output

The third, more complex risk is that of “legal contamination”. Legal contamination arises where AI-generated content is, without the user’s knowledge, affected by third-party intellectual property rights as a result of the protected works used to train the model. In practical terms, the AI may produce outputs that are close to existing works, thereby giving rise to a risk of (direct or indirect) infringement. Recent litigation in Europe demonstrates that this risk is becoming structural.

Conclusion

AI-assisted creation now constitutes a structuring legal issue for the valorization of intangible assets. Securing or assigning rights is no longer a mere formality, but a strategic process conditioning the economic exploitation of the work.
This security rests on three essential requirements: legal qualification, proof of the creative process, and contractual structuring. Their combination ensures both the robustness of the rights and their assignability.

In this context, the value of an AI-generated work no longer depends solely on its creative quality, but on its legal robustness, which alone enables sustainable exploitation.

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

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

Can an AI-generated work be protected by means other than copyright?
Absolutely. Where copyright protection is uncertain, it is possible to rely on other intellectual property tools, such as trade mark law (to protect a distinctive sign), design law (to protect the appearance of a product), or the filing of an “enveloppe Soleau” (to evidence and date a creation). A combined strategy often makes it possible to secure the creation more effectively.

Is drafting a prompt sufficient to be considered an author?
No. A prompt, as an idea or instruction, is not in itself protectable under copyright law. Authorship depends on the structured, precise, and creative nature of the contribution. The more developed the process and the more it involves artistic choices, the more likely it is to qualify as an original contribution.

Who owns the rights to an AI-generated work: the company or the employee?
In principle, copyright vests in the human author. However, in a professional context, economic rights may be transferred or assigned to the employer, depending on the applicable rules (employment contract, assignment agreement, specific provisions for software, etc.). The use of AI does not alter this principle but makes it more complex to identify the human author. In any event, the moral right of attribution (right to be recognised as the author of the work) remains attached to the human author, even where economic rights are transferred to the employer.

Can the data used to train an AI system create liability for the user?
Yes, indirectly. Even if the user does not have access to the training data, the exploitation of a generated work may be challenged if it reproduces protected elements. This highlights the importance of using reliable and legally compliant tools.

Can creative processes be automated while still retaining rights?
Yes, provided that automation does not eliminate all human creative input. The more automated the process, the higher the risk of losing protection. It is therefore advisable to maintain creative control at each key stage.

Introduction

The circulation of sensitive data has accelerated significantly, alongside the widespread use of generative AI tools. This raises a key question: do information and data shared with an AI system, and subsequently with an attorney or intellectual property attorney, remain confidential ?

If communications with a legal professional are protected, the use of AI may undermine confidentiality.

Legal professional privilege of lawyer and intellectual property attorney

Legal professional privilege is a cornerstone of the relationship between a client and their lawyers or intellectual property attorney. Under French law, this protection covers:

• Legal opinions,
• Correspondence,
• Internal memoranda,
• Preparatory documents,
• All exchanges made in the context of legal advice or representation.

This protection is a matter of public policy. It is particularly critical in patent files. For example, premature disclosure of an invention may destroy its novelty and irreversibly compromise patentability. Similarly, confidentiality is essential in trademark, design, and licensing strategies, where economic value often depends on anticipation and discretion.

In practice, when a client communicates directly with an identified legal professional subject to ethical rules and professional oversight, confidentiality is legally protected and enforceable.

Artificial intelligence: exchanges not covered by legal privilege

The issue arises when the same information is first disclosed to a generative AI tool. Unlike a lawyer or intellectual property attorney, an AI system is not a legal subject bound by professional secrecy. It is a technical service operated by a provider and governed by terms of use that may allow the storage, analysis, or reuse of submitted content.

A decision of 17 February 17, 2026 (United States v. Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR, S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026) illustrates this issue clearly.

• Facts

In this case involving securities and electronic fraud, the U.S. government seized around thirty documents reflecting written exchanges between the defendant and the generative artificial intelligence platform “Claude,” with which he had interacted to prepare his defense.

The defendant invoked the confidential nature of these exchanges under legal professional privilege. He argued that his interactions with the AI should be protected in the same way as communications with a lawyer, insofar as they concerned legal matters. However, these exchanges had been recorded and could be accessible to third parties, particularly the service provider.

• The Decision

The court rejected this argument based on several decisive factors:

• First, the exchanges had not taken place between a client and a lawyer: an artificial intelligence system cannot be equated with a legal professional.
• Second, no reasonable expectation of confidentiality could exist, as the platform’s terms of use provided for the collection, use, and possible disclosure of data to third parties.
• Finally, the exchanges had not been conducted under the direction of a lawyer.

The court therefore concluded that submitting information to such a platform amounts to disclosing it to a third party, thereby excluding any protection under legal professional privilege.

• Scope of the Decision

This decision confirms an increasingly accepted position: the use of AI, even for legal purposes, does not preserve confidentiality. The involvement of a technical intermediary generally breaks the conditions required for legal privilege to apply.

Although rendered in a U.S. context, this ruling has broader practical implications. It highlights that information entered into AI systems may lose legal protection, regardless of its sensitivity.

In intellectual property matters, this loss of control is critical. For example:

• An undisclosed invention may lose its novelty if revealed with sufficient detail,
• An international filing strategy may be anticipated by competitors,
• Litigation arguments may be weakened if disclosed prematurely.

How to reconcile the use of AI with confidentiality requirements in intellectual property?

The use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited for lawyer, intellectual property attorney or businesses and may even offer significant productivity gains. However, such use must be governed with a level of rigor proportionate to the stakes involved. Professional ethical guidelines emphasize the need to maintain continuous human oversight, to verify the reliability of outputs, and to ensure that the confidentiality of client data is never compromised.

In practice, an appropriate framework relies on a clear distinction:

• General, non-sensitive information, such as content that does not enable the identification of a client, does not reveal a legal strategy, and does not describe an invention in a usable manner, may be used for assistance purposes.
• By contrast, personal data, detailed technical information, litigation timelines, draft patent claims, or infringement risk assessments should not be disclosed to uncontrolled public AI tools.

Where a law firm or a company seeks to integrate AI into its processes, it should prioritize secure solutions hosted in contractually regulated environments, offering guarantees against data reuse and robust confidentiality commitments. This requirement for control is consistent with the principles set out by the CNIL and, more broadly, with applicable data security obligations.

Best practices to protect sensitive information

As a general rule, publicly available AI tools should be treated as non-confidential environments. Sensitive information should not be disclosed through such platforms.

AI may assist with drafting or summarizing non-sensitive material, but legal analysis, risk assessment, and strategic decision-making must remain under the control of a qualified legal professional.

Organizations should also implement internal AI governance policies to define acceptable uses and ensure that sensitive data remains within secure channels.

Conclusion

The relationship between a client and a lawyer or intellectual property attorney remains protected by a strong legal framework. However, the use of artificial intelligence introduces a technical third party that may compromise this confidentiality.

The recent U.S. decision clearly illustrates this risk: communications with AI systems do not benefit from legal professional privilege.

Accordingly, while AI can be a valuable tool, its use must be strictly controlled to preserve the confidentiality and value of intellectual property assets.

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

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Is confidentiality automatically lost if information is entered into AI?
Confidentiality is not legally guaranteed when information is entered into a public AI system. Even in the absence of an actual breach, transmitting data to a technical third party may weaken protection, particularly regarding legal privilege and trade secrets.

2. Can a lawyer use AI in a case ?
Yes, provided they comply with their ethical obligations. The lawyer must retain control over the reasoning, verify outputs, and ensure that client data is not exposed in unsecured environments.

3. Can an invention described in a prompt lose its patentability?
Yes, if the description is sufficiently detailed to constitute prior disclosure. In patent law, novelty is an absolute requirement; any uncontrolled disclosure before filing may compromise protection.

4. Can data entered into AI be stored or reused?
Yes. Depending on the terms of use, data may be stored, analyzed, or reused to improve services. This increases the risk of confidentiality loss when sensitive information is shared.

5. How can AI be used without compromising confidentiality?
AI should be limited to non-sensitive tasks, without including identifying or strategic elements, and secure solutions with strong contractual guarantees regarding confidentiality and non-reuse should be preferred.

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

Introduction

In a context marked by increasingly stringent requirements regarding the protection of personal data, the management of information relating to domain name registrants is undergoing significant developments. The current practice of masking WHOIS data forms part of this trend, but it is not without raising certain concerns. Indeed, it appears to be in tension with the principle of transparency historically upheld by ICANN. A question therefore remains: is the anonymization of domain name holders truly compatible with the rules governing the domain name system?

What is WHOIS and why is it essential?

WHOIS is a distributed registration data system that enables the identification of domain name registrants. It contains key information such as the registrant’s identity and contact details, the registrar, and the domain name’s registration and expiry dates.

Historically, this system is grounded in a core ICANN principle: transparency. This principle ensures the balanced functioning of the domain name ecosystem by, in particular:

• Enabling the traceability of rights holders
• Ensuring the effectiveness of protection and dispute resolution mechanisms

In practice, WHOIS operates as a regulatory tool, maintaining a balance between the freedom to register domain names and the accountability of registrants.

The ICANN framework: transparency and registrar obligations

The framework established by ICANN aims to ensure the reliability, accessibility, and transparency of domain name registration data. Under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registrars are required to collect and maintain accurate, complete, and verifiable registrant information, within the limits imposed by the GDPR, and to implement mechanisms allowing access to such data under regulated conditions, particularly in the context of administrative or judicial proceedings.

Beyond these obligations, the system is based on a fundamental principle: registrant accountability. The registration of a domain name implies that its holder can be identified and held responsible for its use. This identifiability is essential for the effective exercise of third-party rights, whether to issue notices, initiate UDRP proceedings, or enforce decisions.

From a technical standpoint, WHOIS operationalises ICANN’s regulatory model by ensuring traceability of domain name holders.

Anonymised WHOIS: how it works and potential abuses

Since the entry into force of the GDPR on 25 May 2018, numerous registrars have adopted a particularly cautious approach to the management of WHOIS data, especially where such data relates to natural persons, leading in practice to a largely systematic anonymization, often applied by default.

In this context, they have progressively adjusted their practices in order to reconcile personal data protection requirements with the historical transparency obligations of the WHOIS system. This evolution has resulted in a restriction of public access to identifying data, as well as in the development of technical masking solutions.

Masked WHOIS data rely on privacy or proxy services offered by registrars, whereby the registrant’s details are replaced with those of an anonymisation service provider. As a result, identifying information is concealed, and a third party appears as the point of contact, rendering the registrant’s identity only indirectly accessible.

While this evolution reflects legitimate data protection concerns, it has directly impacted the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms. It complicates the identification of registrants, delays dispute resolution, and hinders domain name recovery actions, while facilitating abusive practices such as phishing, counterfeiting, and typosquatting.

In practice, anonymised WHOIS increasingly operates as a concealment tool, departing from the transparency-based logic historically underpinning the DNS. This results in a form of over-compliance, where data protection effectively prevails over accessibility requirements, thereby weakening a core element of ICANN’s regulatory model.

For further information regarding the fraudulent uses of domain names, we invite you to consult our previously published article.

Reconciling data protection (GDPR) with ICANN transparency requirements

The widespread use of anonymised WHOIS highlights a structural tension requiring a balancing of competing interests: on the one hand, the protection of personal data, and on the other, the need for transparency and registrant identifiability.

In this context, mechanisms have emerged to reconcile these objectives, most notably differentiated access models.

Although WHOIS data are no longer publicly accessible, they may be disclosed to parties demonstrating a legitimate interest, particularly in contentious contexts. This model, commonly referred to as “gated Whois,” seeks to preserve data confidentiality while ensuring the effective enforcement of rights.

This development is rooted in the ICANN Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (2018), adopted in response to the GDPR. This framework reshaped access to WHOIS data by establishing anonymisation by default while organising controlled access mechanisms.

A practical illustration of this system can be found in UDRP proceedings. Upon the filing of a complaint, the dispute resolution provider requests a registrar verification, enabling the identification of the underlying registrant despite anonymised WHOIS data.

However, outside such structured mechanisms, access to registration data remains fragmented and largely dependent on registrar practices. Disclosure conditions and response times vary significantly, limiting effectiveness, particularly in situations requiring urgent action.

Conclusion

The reconciliation between GDPR requirements and the need for access to registration data does not depend solely on regulatory texts, but on the implementation of reliable operational mechanisms ensuring proportionate, secure, and effective access.

Failing this, there is a risk of entrenching a system in which legitimate data protection concerns undermine the effectiveness of regulatory tools and the enforcement of rights.

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

1. Can WHOIS data qualify as personal data?
Yes, as long as they enable the identification of a natural person, they fall within the scope of the GDPR.

2. Does the GDPR require full anonymisation of WHOIS data?
No, the GDPR requires the protection of personal data, but does not mandate systematic anonymisation. This is often the result of a cautious interpretation by those involved.

3. Are WHOIS data always accurate?
They are required to be. Registrars have a contractual obligation to collect and maintain accurate and up-to-date data, even if such data are not publicly accessible.

4. Can WHOIS data be obtained outside UDRP proceedings?
Yes, through disclosure requests. However, outcomes depend on registrar practices and the assessment of the asserted legitimate interest.

5. Can a UDRP proceeding be initiated without knowing the registrant’s identity?
WHOIS anonymization does not prevent filing a UDRP complaint. The complaint can be brought against an “unknown” registrant or a privacy service, it being specified that the registrar will disclose the underlying registrant’s identity during the proceedings.

The purpose of this publication is to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to particular situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The Fauré Le Page judgment (CJEU, 26 March 2026, Case C-412/24) is in line with one of the fundamental principles of trademark law, according to which a trademark must not be misleading. The Court clarifies, in this judgment, the conditions under which a company may rely, in connection with its trademark, on a historical heritage. Its analysis is not limited to the mere material characteristics of the goods or services covered by the specification, but also extends to the intangible attributes associated with them, such as prestige, image, or know-how

Understanding historical heritage claims in trademark law

A heritage claim consists, for a business, in presenting itself as the continuation of a historic house or long-standing know-how. This positioning typically relies on several structuring elements, such as asserting an early founding date or highlighting a claimed continuity (name, activity, clientele, expertise).

Particularly common in the luxury, leather goods, and fashion sectors, this strategy serves as a powerful tool for trademark differentiation and value enhancement.

From a legal perspective, however, such practices require heightened scrutiny, as they may give rise to a risk of misleading the public. Until now, case law remained uncertain as to the level of scrutiny applicable to such claims.

Facts of the Fauré Le Page case

The trademark “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” refers to a parisian house founded in the 18th century, historically specialized in arms manufacturing before later shifting to leather goods. The original company was dissolved in 1992. In 2009, a new company acquired the trademark and presented itself as the heir of that historic house, without having continued its activity.

The competing company Goyard challenged the legitimacy of the reference “Paris 1717”. The French Supreme Court stayed proceedings and referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, concerning the interpretation of misleadingness under Directive 2008/95/EC on trademarks, which, although subsequently repealed and replaced by Directive (EU) 2015/2436 , remained applicable to the dispute ratione temporis having regard to the date of the facts: can a trademark be considered misleading because it gives a false impression of the company’s history, even though the product itself is not misleading?

What is the CJEU’s position?

The Court first sets out a principle: misleadingness under Directive 2008/95/EC must, in principle, relate to the characteristics of the goods or services, and not to those of the trademark proprietor itself.

However, it immediately acknowledges an exception: information relating to the undertaking in question, in this case, a claimed length of service, may indirectly influence the perception of a product characteristic, provided that the consumer infers a certain level of quality or prestige from it.

The Court also explicitly includes intangible elements such as prestige, brand image and know-how within the concept of a product’s ‘quality’. The Court thus notes that, in the luxury sector, quality is not limited solely to the material characteristics of the product, but also includes its image and the prestige associated with it, as held in the Copad judgment (CJEU, 23 April 2009, C-59/08).

Consequently, the reference to a fictitious history, suggesting ancestral know-how, is likely to constitute a misleading indication as to an essential characteristic of the product.

Finally, the Court emphasizes the importance of a concrete assessment of the perception of the relevant public, which falls within the sovereign appraisal of national courts. It is for them to determine whether the date at issue is actually perceived as a founding date and whether it conveys an impression of longstanding know-how influencing purchasing decisions. This assessment must be global and take into account the combination of elements forming the trademark, as well as the specificities of the economic sector concerned.

Implications for businesses and trademark owners

An unfounded claim of prior use may constitute both grounds for cancelling the trademark and an element constituting misleading conduct.

In this regard, the Court draws a clear distinction between:

• The legitimate takeover of a business or trade, involving genuine continuity;

• The opportunistic reappropriation of a historic name, lacking any economic basis.

In this case, the company Fauré Le Page, established in 2009, had not continued the business of the former company, which had been dissolved in 1992. The acquisition of the trademark therefore did not confer upon it the right to claim the seniority of the original company.

In this context, companies must strictly regulate the storytelling of their trademarks, by verifying the historical accuracy of their communications, documenting any heritage claims, and avoiding any ambiguous wording that could be misleading.

Conclusion

In this judgment, the Court of Justice endorses a broad interpretation of misleadingness in trademark law, by recognizing that the assessment of the quality of a good or service no longer depends solely on its material and objective characteristics but may also depend on intangible factors such as image or prestige. It thus opens the door to increased scrutiny of historical storytelling strategies where they rely on inaccurate or misleading elements.

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 Fauré Le Page judgment only concern trademarks including a date?
No, if the date “1717” is central to the case, the scope of the judgment is broader. The CJEU focuses on the consistency between commercial communication and economic reality. Any reference to longevity, whether through a date, expressions such as “founded in…” or “since…”, or historical narratives in a name or slogan, may be subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Does this judgment call into question trademarks that have been registered and used for many years?
Potentially, yes. A trademark may be declared invalid ab initio, even years after registration, if it is found to be misleading. The judgment does not create a new ground for invalidity but clarifies the interpretation of an existing one.

What is meant in practice by “genuine economic continuity”?
The concept is not exhaustively defined by the Court, but certain indicators can be identified: the actual transfer of the business, the retention of identifiable know-how, or the takeover of an established customer base. Conversely, the mere acquisition of a name or a trademark without any underlying business activity is not sufficient.

Does this judgment also apply to small businesses claiming a long-standing family history?
Yes, no exemption is provided based on company size. However, in practice, the risk of challenge is higher where the claim is prominently used for commercial purposes, particularly in sectors where longevity constitutes a key selling point.

The purpose of this publication is to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to particular situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Plant innovation now holds a strategic position at the intersection of agriculture, food security, and climate transition. Plant breeding, biotechnologies, genome editing, and input optimization all rely on substantial investments, long development cycles, and a highly competitive global environment.

When discussing intellectual property in the plant sector, the immediate reflex is often to think of patents. However, this perception is reductive. In practice, the protection of plant innovations relies on a set of complementary rights, whose interplay is essential.

For breeders, seed producers, and agri-tech players, true value does not lie in a single right, but in the ability to build a coherent protection framework. This approach makes it possible to cover not only the variety itself, but also the technologies, uses, and commercial applications surrounding it.

What intellectual property rights apply to the plant sector?

Plant variety rights: protection of biological creation

Plant variety rights form the foundation of protection for plant innovations. Under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, the breeder is granted an exclusive right allowing them to “produce, reproduce, offer for sale, sell, export or import” propagating material of the protected variety.

This exclusive right is not limited to the initial variety. It also extends to essentially derived varieties, significantly strengthening the scope of protection.

The granting of protection is based on internationally harmonised criteria established by the UPOV Convention. A variety must be:

• novelty,
• distinctness,
• uniformity,
• stablility.

These requirements reflect a biological logic specific to the sector, distinct from patent law criteria.

To learn more about plant variety rights and filing procedures, we invite you to consult the dedicated article available on our blog.

However, this regime has a structural limitation: it protects only the variety itself. It does not cover technical processes or intangible elements related to its commercialisation. This limitation explains the need for additional legal tools.

Patents: a strictly regulated technical protection

Patents apply in the plant sector solely to protect technical innovations. They may cover microbiological processes, genetic modification techniques, or biotechnological tools.

The scope of patent protection in this field has been significantly clarified by the decision G 3/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (14 May 2020), known as “Pepper II.”

In this decision, the EPO confirmed that plants obtained exclusively by essentially biological processes are not patentable. This case law restricts the use of patents for innovations derived from conventional breeding and reinforces the central role of Plant Variety Rights.

As a result, the two systems are complementary but not interchangeable.

In practice, this dual framework requires a strategic approach. An innovation resulting from genetic engineering may be protected by a patent, while the resulting variety must be protected through a Plant Variety Right. A lack of coordination between these protections can significantly weaken the rights holder’s position.

We invite you to consult our article on the simultaneous filing of a plant variety right and a patent, to help you determine the most appropriate strategy.

Trademarks: a strategic tool for commercial value

A trademark grants its owner an exclusive right to prevent the use of identical or similar signs.

It operates at a different level: commercialisation. A trademark protects a distinctive sign identifying the origin of goods. Unlike plant variety rights, it does not cover the plant itself but its positioning on the market.

Let’s take a well-known example: Pink Lady, which is not a botanical apple variety. The actual variety is called Cripps Pink. Pink Lady is a trademark used to market certain apples that meet a specific set of requirements.

This means that multiple producers can grow the Cripps Pink variety, but only those who comply with the trademark’s conditions are allowed to sell their apples under the name Pink Lady.

This clearly shows that a trademark primarily serves to organize the commercialization of a product. It does not protect the plant itself. This distinction is essential, as the same variety can be exploited by several operators, but only some of them will be able to use a given trademark.

Design rights: protecting aesthetic aspects

Additional tools may complement this framework, particularly design rights, defined under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. These rights protect the appearance of products or their packaging, especially in the ornamental plant sector.

They serve as a useful complement to other rights when an aesthetic aspect is emphasized.

Why is a multidimensional strategy essential for protecting plant varieties?

The effectiveness of an intellectual property strategy lies in the ability to coordinate these different rights coherently. Each tool protects a specific dimension of innovation, and their combination ensures comprehensive protection.

Plant Variety Rights secure control over the variety. Patents protect technical processes. Trademarks structure commercial positioning and enhance perceived value, although they do not protect the plant itself.

This cumulative approach creates a highly effective legal barrier, enabling not only the protection of innovation but also the structuring of its economic exploitation.

Legal limits and balancing mechanisms to anticipate

Plant Variety Rights are designed to strike a balance between protecting innovation and preserving the dynamics of the agricultural sector. Even when a variety is protected, the rights holder does not benefit from absolute exclusivity.

• The breeder’s exemption allows third parties to use a protected variety to develop new ones, ensuring the continuity of innovation.
• Similarly, the farmer’s privilege permits, under certain conditions, the reuse of harvested material as seed for subsequent crops. This reflects the economic realities of agricultural practices.

These mechanisms demonstrate the legislator’s intention to reconcile the interests of breeders, farmers, and the market.

Conversely, patent law generally provides stricter protection, with fewer exceptions of this kind. In particular:

• there is, in principle, no automatic equivalent to the breeder’s exemption: the use of a patented invention for the purpose of developing new varieties may require authorization from the right holder;
• the farmer’s privilege does not apply to patented inventions, which may restrict the reuse of harvested material when it incorporates a protected technology;
• the scope of a patent may extend not only to the initial product, but also to certain derived products or uses, thereby strengthening the holder’s control over the value chain.

This difference highlights the importance of a strategic approach to identify precisely what is protected, what may be used by third parties, and to anticipate the resulting economic implications.

Conclusion

Plant innovations cannot be effectively protected through a single legal mechanism. The diversity of protectable elements requires a multidimensional approach, combining Plant Variety Rights, patents, trademarks, and, where appropriate, design rights.

Such a strategy secures the entire value chain, from research to commercialisation, and constitutes a decisive competitive advantage for stakeholders in the sector.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex issues related to plant variety rights by offering tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the implementation and optimization of protection strategies that incorporate all intellectual property tools (plant variety certificates, patents, trademarks, and know-how).

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Does a protected variety become freely usable after PVR expiration?

Yes, it generally enters the public domain. However, other rights, such as patents or trademarks, may still restrict its use.

2. What is the duration of protection for the different rights?

PVR protection lasts 25 to 30 years, patents last 20 years, and trademarks can be renewed indefinitely every 10 years.

3. What protection is most suitable for new genomic techniques?

These innovations typically require a combined approach: patent protection for the technical aspect and PVR for the variety.

4. What are the risks of a poorly designed IP strategy?

An incomplete strategy may lead to loss of control, legal obstacles, or reduced economic value.

5. Are farm-saved seeds compatible with IP rights?

Yes, but only within the strict framework of the farmer’s privilege, which regulates this practice.

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