News

Introduction

At the heart of trademark law, use plays an essential role: without real exploitation, the legal protection of a trademark is at risk. But not just any use will suffice. Many right holders mistakenly believe that displaying their trademark on a storefront or window is enough to establish genuine use. European case law, particularly the K-Way decision, firmly reminds us that such practice does not meet the standards of genuine use under trademark law.

The fundamental principle of trademark maintenance: genuine use

The concept of “genuine use”

Under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the trademark holder who, without proper justification, has not made genuine use of the trademark within a continuous period of five years, starting at the earliest from the registration date, risks revocation of the trademark. This principle is reflected into French law under Article L.714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code. The use invoked must be genuine and not merely symbolic. In other words, there must be serious and effective exploitation in the relevant economic sector, in connection with the goods or services for which the trademark is registered.

The burden of proof and its implications

The burden of proof lies with the trademark holder – not with the applicant for revocation. However, vague or incomplete evidence will not suffice: the proof must be objective, specific, and dated. Courts reject speculation or probability.

Why the use of a trademark on a storefront is insufficient to demonstrate genuine use

Legal distinction between a trade sign, a company name, and a trademark

A trade name identifies a business establishment (its façade or sales point), while a name or company name identifies, respectively, the commercial entity or the legal person. The mere presence of a trademark on a storefront shows an intention to associate the sign with the business activity, but does not ensure that consumers perceive the sign as identifying the origin of the goods or services offered.

This identification function is the essential purpose of a trademark, as established by the consistent case law of the ECJ (see Terrapin case, 22 June 1976, C-119/75 a trademark must enable consumers to distinguish goods or services as originating from one undertaking rather than another. Without a perceptible link between the sign and the goods themselves, using a trademark as a trade sign is insufficient to maintain the rights conferred by registration.

Recent case law: the K-Way decision of 25 June 2025

The reasoning of the General Court (GC)

The K-Way case (T-372/24)originated from a 2019 non-use revocation action before the EUIPO against a figurative EU trademark registered since 2006 by K-Way. The figurative trademark, consisting of a coloured rectangular band, was registered notably for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (leather goods, clothing, footwear, headgear).

In a decision dated July 11^th, 2023, the EUIPO partially upheld the revocation request, cancelling the registration for all goods except outerwear and footwear in Class 25. K-Way appealed. In a decision dated May 21^st, 2024 (R 1748/2023-2), the EUIPO Board of Appeal partially reversed the previous decision, finding that genuine use had been demonstrated for certain goods. K-Way then appealed again before the General Court, claiming that genuine use had also been proven for the remaining goods.

To oppose the revocation, K-Way argued that the trademark was indeed used in its mono-brand stores, where only its products were sold, and that displaying the trademark on store-front was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use for all the relevant goods. It relied on earlier case law, notably Céline SARL v. Céline SA (C-17/06), where the ECJ held that “the use of a company name, trade name, or trade sign may constitute genuine use of a registered trademark where the sign is affixed to the goods marketed, or where, even in the absence of such affixing, the use of the sign creates a link between the sign and the goods marketed or the services provided.”

The General Court acknowledged that displaying a trademark on the façade or storefront could serve as an indicator or piece of evidence in the assessment of genuine use. However, such display alone does not suffice to establish genuine use for all goods or services covered by the registration. The display of a trademark on a shopfront does not, by itself, fulfil the essential function of a trademark.

The Court accepted that the use of a trademark on a storefront may contribute to the overall evidence, but it is not in itself enough to demonstrate genuine use for all registered goods. Precise, dated, and consistent evidence must be provided, showing a direct and unequivocal link between the sign and the marketed goods or services. A presumed consumer perception or purely internal use within the company is insufficient: the use must be public, external, and commercially significant.

The fragility of trademark use evidence in mono-brand stores

The Court’s reasoning is entirely consistent with the objectives of trademark law. Indeed:

• If the owner simultaneously uses other trademarks for certain goods, the consumer’s perception of the storefront sign as identifying the specific trademark may be diluted.
• The use of a trademark as a storefront may relate only to the business premises rather than the promotion of the products themselves: if the trademark is not visible on the goods or packaging, consumers may not associate the trademark with the products.

By emphasizing these points, the Court reaffirmed that use of a trademark as a storefront or store can only serve as supplementary evidence, not as the main proof of exploitation. This approach preserves the consistency of the system by preventing trademarks from being maintained without genuine market presence for the products they claim to cover.

Conclusion

Using a trademark as a trade sign or company name can be a relevant indication of use but does not replace evidence of genuine use of the trademark in connection with the goods and services. The recent K-Way decision (T-372/24) confirms that displaying a trademark on a mono-brand store does not exempt the owner from the burden of proving use of the trademark to designate the registered goods and services. Only a comprehensive strategy combining various forms of evidence can ensure the maintenance of rights.

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

FAQ

1. Can use of a trademark as a trade sign be invoked in a revocation action?
Yes, but it will only serve as one piece of evidence among others, never as stand-alone or genuine use.

2. What if evidence of use is not dated?
Its evidential value is significantly weakened. Courts require elements clearly situated in time and directly linked to the trademark.

3. Is use of a trademark on the Internet taken into account?
Yes, provided it is shown that the website targets the relevant market (through language, currency, or product destination) and that the trademark is used to identify goods, not merely the business itself.

4. Can a trademark be maintained if only partial use is proven?
Yes. If the trademark is used for only some of the registered goods, protection may be maintained for those goods, but not for the others.

5. When must the trademark owner prove genuine use?
The owner is not required to prove use spontaneously, but must do so whenever a revocation action is filed or a counterclaim for revocation is raised in opposition proceedings. The proprietor must provide evidence of genuine, continuous, and relevant use during the five-year reference period preceding the filing of the action.

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

When a trademark is registered to designate essential oils, its owner may, in practice, not market these substances in their pure form. They may be creams, sprays, or even impregnated textiles, all enriched with essential oils but without these being sold as such. In such a context, a competitor may well bring an action for revocation of the trademark, considering that the declared use does not correspond to the registered category.

In a ruling dated May 14, 2025, the French Court of Cassation confirmed that such use is not sufficient to maintain trademark protection for the category “essential oils.” This decision has significant practical implications for trademark owners active in the aromatherapy, cosmetics, and wellness sectors.

The Skin’Up case

The company Skin’Up was the owner of the word trademark “SKIN’UP,” designating “essential oils” (class 3). In reality, it did not commercialize essential oils in vials. Its business mainly focused on slimming mists, cosmeto-textiles, and other products enriched with essential oils.

The company Univers Pharmacie, the owner of several “UP SKIN” trademarks, brought an action for partial revocation against the “SKIN’UP” trademark, considering confusingly similar to its own signs, on the grounds of insufficient use of that trademark for products in class 3.

The INPI recognized the action for revocation as partially justified and upheld the “SKIN’UP” trademark for “essential oils” and “cosmetics.” Univers Pharmacie appealed to the French Court of Cassation and asked the following question: is the marketing of textiles containing essential oils sufficient to consider that there has been genuine use of the trademark for cosmetics and essential oils?

In its ruling of May 14, 2025, the French Court of Cassation set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reaffirmed a strict interpretation of genuine use in trademark law.

1. Regarding “cosmetics”: The Court reiterated that the essential criterion for distinguishing between products is their purpose and intended use (the criterion of the autonomous subcategory). It therefore ruled that the Court of Appeal should have verified whether cosmeto-textiles constituted an autonomous subcategory within cosmetics. The use of the trademark on a distinct subcategory (such as cosmeto-textiles) is not sufficient to prove use for other products in the category (such as conventional cosmetic creams).
2. Regarding “essential oils”: The Court ruled that the presence of essential oils in the composition of a product (in this case, cosmetotextiles or a mist) cannot, in itself, be considered proof of use of the trademark for “essential oils” as a separate product. The Court clearly distinguished between the ingredient and the designated finished product. Marketing a product containing essential oils is not the same as marketing essential oils, just as selling a car is not the same as selling steel.

By setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation logically reaffirmed the principle of specialty, which stipulates that protection only applies to the goods or services for which the trademark is actually used.

The concept of use

Genuine use of the trademark is not a mere formality, but a fundamental legal obligation. The owner must demonstrate effective, genuine, and uninterrupted use of the trademark for a period of five years after its registration, otherwise, protection will lapse for the goods or services for which no use has been proven.

This requirement is based on the principle that the owner’s interests should not infringe on the freedom of competitors to do business. This is why European case law, which is similar to that of the French Court of Cassation, takes a strict approach, particularly in cases where the wording of the registration is broad.

The key principles inspired by European case law are as follows:

• The use of a product belonging to a broad category is not sufficient to cover the entire category
• When the category is sufficiently broad, it is possible to distinguish autonomous subcategories of products based on their purpose and intended use
• If such subcategories exist, use of the trademark must be proven for each of them.

The ruling confirms that general or “indirect” use is not sufficient. Use must be genuine, distinct, and identifiable for each subcategory.

In practical terms:

If you designated “essential oils” in your trademark, but you do not sell them, the protection of your trademark may be at risk.

Here are five common pitfalls in trademark exploitation:

1. Registering too many products or classes without a clear exploitation strategy
2. Thinking that the use of an ingredient is sufficient to cover the corresponding category
3. Neglecting segmentation by product type (which judges are increasingly requiring)
4. Lacking evidence of actual use in the event of a dispute
5. Ignoring or downplaying revocation actions (these are never mere formalities)

To learn more about the concept of use in trademark law, we invite you to read our previously published article on the subject.

What you can do right now

Do I actually market every product listed in my trademark registration?

If the answer is no, here are the steps to follow:

1. Check your classes and designations

• Class 3: essential oils, cosmetics, soaps, etc.
• Class 5: pharmaceutical products, supplements, etc.
• Class 35: product sales, marketing, etc.

For each product, ask yourself: is it actually being marketed under your trademark?

2. Gather evidence of use

• Invoices, purchase orders
• Packaging and labels mentioning the trademark
• Product images
• Social media posts, e-commerce sites

In the absence of proof of use: real risk of revocation.

Conclusion

Trademark protection for a category of products requires actual and direct use in that category.

Therefore, marketing a product containing essential oils is not sufficient to justify genuine use of the trademark for “essential oils” products.

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

FAQ

1. What risks does a trademark owner face if the use of their trademark is deemed insufficient for certain categories of products during revocation proceedings?

They risk losing some (or all) of their rights to the trademark for the products or services that are not being used. This means that third parties will be free to register or use similar trademarks for these products, reducing the scope of the original protection.

2. What is meant by an “autonomous subcategory” of products, and why is this concept important for maintaining a trademark?

An autonomous subcategory is a distinct group of products within a broader category, identified by their purpose and intended use (for example, class 3 covers cleaning products and non-medicinal toilet preparations and cosmetics, with subcategories including cosmetics, perfumery, and makeup). If a category can be divided into autonomous subcategories, use of the trademark for one subcategory does not prove use for the others. The owner therefore risks forfeiture for the subcategories that are not exploited.

3. How does the French Court of Cassation distinguish between the use of a trademark for a category of products and its use for specific subcategories?

It applies the criteria of the purpose and intended use of the products. If these criteria reveal distinct uses and markets, then the products form autonomous subcategories and the use of a trademark in one does not constitute use in the others.

4. How can I prove that I am using my trademark for a category of products?

To prove genuine use of your trademark, you must gather concrete evidence of use for the designated products. This includes invoices and purchase orders, packaging and labels bearing the trademark, product images, and posts on social media or e-commerce sites. Without such evidence, you run a real risk of forfeiture.

5. Is it risky to designate too many classes or products when registering a trademark?

Yes. An overly broad registration without a strategy can weaken the trademark. It is better to target specifically the products that are already being used or that you plan to use.

Wine is both a cultural and economic treasure. Behind every bottle lie years of dedication, a terroir, and a reputation. Yet in today’s global market, this value can be compromised in an instant, a rejected trademark application, a copied label, or counterfeit bottles circulating abroad.

This is where wine law and intellectual property intersect. Far from being mere constraints, these legal tools are powerful strategic levers for protecting and enhancing wine brands. For over 20 years, Dreyfus & Associés, an internationally recognized law firm, has been assisting wine estates, négociants, and cooperatives in transforming legal complexity into competitive advantage.

The expectations of wine industry professionals

Wine producers expect more than just legal advice, they seek a true strategic partner:

• Clarity: Knowing what names, grape varieties, terroirs, or designs can be used safely.
• Security: Ensuring bottles aren’t copied or shipments blocked at customs.
• Globalization: Understanding how to protect a brand in China or the United States.
• Cost Optimization: Investing wisely without filing unnecessary applications.
• Valorization: Turning their IP portfolio into a transferable, valuable business asset.

When preparing a new cuvée, a winemaker often wonders: “Is this name available? Does my label comply with the law? Will I be protected internationally?”, and expects a clear, fast, and reliable answer.

Key legal challenges in wine law

Trademarks and designations: a delicate balance

In the wine sector, the line between trademarks and designations is particularly thin. A producer attempting to register a name that evokes a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) risks immediate refusal by the intellectual property office concerned or opposition.
👉 Dreyfus assists clients in choosing distinctive, legally secured names while avoiding conflicts with interprofessional bodies or holders of prior trademarks and protected designations of origin.

Labeling and packaging: creativity within the law

A wine label is its “identity card.” It must attract consumers while complying with strict regulations. EU Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 imposes mandatory indications, origin, alcohol content, allergens, volume. Yet labels are also a field for graphic innovation… and disputes. A crest resembling that of a competitor can be enough to trigger litigation.
👉 Dreyfus helps wineries protect their visual identity through copyright, design rights, and contracts with creative partners.

Counterfeiting and imitations: a global threat

According to the OECD, counterfeit wines and spirits cost several billion euros every year. In China, over 30 % of “Bordeaux” wines sold reportedly do not originate from Bordeaux. Such counterfeited products undermine consumer trust and damage appellation reputations.
👉 Dreyfus implements monitoring systems, customs seizures, and litigation actions to safeguard its clients.

Export and international protection

Within the EU, protection is harmonized via the EU trademark system. Beyond Europe, however, the landscape changes dramatically:

• USA: declarative system emphasizing actual commercial use.
• China: “First-to-file” rule, trademark squatters often register before legitimate producers.
• Latin America: varying recognition of appellations and lengthy procedures.

👉 Through its global network, Dreyfus designs targeted filing strategies that secure priority markets.

How Dreyfus addresses these challenges

Proactive audits to prevent obstacles

Before filing a trademark, Dreyfus conducts comprehensive clearance searches across multiple databases (trademarks, PDOs, PGIs, domain names). This prevents issues such as a winery wishing to name its cuvée “Clos de Provence”, almost certain to be refused.

Smart, strategic filings

Rather than filing “everywhere,” Dreyfus tailors a strategy aligned with each client’s business plan. For a small company exporting only to Europe and China, filing in Latin America would be unnecessary. This approach optimizes costs and maximizes effectiveness.

Strong anti-counterfeiting actions

When imitation occurs, speed is crucial. Dreyfus coordinates customs seizures, bailiff reports, and litigation both in France and abroad. For example, a client discovered counterfeit bottles in Asia, thanks to Dreyfus, the counterfeit products were seized and removed from the market within weeks.

Enhancing the value of intangible assets

Beyond protection, Dreyfus focuses on valorization. A protected brand or label becomes a strategic asset that increases a winery’s value during succession or fundraising.

Data and case Law: evidence of authority

• France is the world’s leading wine exporter, with nearly €17 billion in exports in 2023 (FEVS).
• Over 1,000 litigations are brought each year by the Comité Champagne to defend the appellation.
• In 2017, the French Conseil d’État reaffirmed that the use of the term “château” is strictly regulated.
• In China, a recent ruling confirmed that using a term phonetically similar to “Bordeaux” constitutes infringement.

These examples demonstrate that legal vigilance is not optional, it is essential to the industry’s survival.

Practical case studies: when expertise makes the difference

Case 1 – A cuvée saved through anticipation

A winery planned to launch a new cuvée inspired by its terroir. Dreyfus’s clearance search revealed a conflict with a protected appellation. Instead of pursuing a costly dispute, the firm advised a slight name adjustment and secure filings in Europe and China.
Result: a smooth market launch, free of litigation.

Case 2 – Fighting counterfeits abroad

A winemaker discovered counterfeit bottles in an Asian market. Dreyfus coordinated a customs seizure, secured withdrawal of the counterfeits, and supported crisis communication. Swift action limited financial loss and preserved brand reputation.

Practical checklist for winemakers and merchants

Before marketing your wine, ask yourself:

1. Is my cuvée’s name distinctive and legally available?
2. Does my label include all mandatory legal information?
3. Have my designer’s rights been properly transferred through a proper contract?
4. Do my filings cover my actual export markets, not just hypothetical ones?
5. Have I set up a monitoring to detect imitations or competing filings?

A simple check beforehand can prevent years of litigation.

Conclusion

In the wine world, reputations are built over decades but can be destroyed within months by a dispute or counterfeit. Far from being a constraint, wine law is a strategic weapon for protecting a domain’s identity and expanding into new markets.

With its expertise in intellectual property, its deep understanding of the wine sector, and its global presence, Dreyfus & Associés is the ideal partner to transform legal complexity into a lasting competitive advantage.

👉 Launching a new cuvée, designing a label, or entering a foreign market? Contact Dreyfus & Associés to secure your rights and avoid costly disputes.

FAQ – Wine Law and Intellectual Property

What is the difference between AOC and AOP?
AOC (Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée) is the French designation, while PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) is its EU-wide equivalent.

Can I register a grape variety as a trademark?
No. Common grape names (Chardonnay, Syrah) are descriptive. Invented or distinctive names, however, can be protected.

Can I protect my label?
Yes, through copyright and/or design registration.

How much does a wine trademark filing cost?
Costs vary by jurisdiction. Expect a few hundred euros in France/EU, more for international filings.

How can I protect my wine internationally?
By combining targeted filings (EUIPO, Madrid System, national filings) with active monitoring.

What if an interprofessional body challenges my filing?
Consider a coexistence agreement, adjust your filing, or pursue legal defense.

Can I use the term “château”?
Yes, but only if you comply with French and EU regulations governing its use.

How should I react to counterfeiting?
Gather evidence (bailiff report, seizure), then proceed via cease-and-desist, legal action, or customs intervention.

Do small wineries have the same rights as large groups?
Absolutely. What matters is not size, but strategy and enforcement.

Can I protect my winery’s domain name as a trademark?
Yes, if it is distinctive and used commercially, it can be registered as a trademark.

Introduction

When a trademark filing covers an overly broad range of goods or services, and the owner is required to demonstrate its genuine use, the trademark may be subject to revocation for non-use. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) decision of May, 14 2025 confirms a strict and demanding approach in this regard.

Legal framework: applicable law and case law

Article L.714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code and EU directives

According to Article L. 714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code, where the proprietor has not made genuine use of the trademark, without legitimate reason, for an uninterrupted period of five years starting at the earliest from the date of registration, the mark shall be liable to revocation. These provisions must be interpreted consistently with Directive 2008/95/EC.

The burden of proving genuine use lies entirely with the trademark owner.

The Ferrari doctrine: clarification regarding broad categories of goods and services

In the Ferrari decisions (C-720/18 & C-721/18), the ECJ drew an important distinction between two scenarios:

• If the trademark covers a precise and indivisible category of goods and services, use in relation to part of that category  may suffice to establish genuine use.
• If the category is broad and divisible, the owner must prove genuine use for each autonomous sub-category. To identify an autonomous subcategory of goods or services, the ECJ held that the decisive criteria are the purpose and intended use of the goods or services concerned. In practice, this means that the use of the mark must be clearly linked to the goods or services for which it has been registered.

The core difficulty: subdividing a broad category

When a trademark is registered under an overarching designation (e.g., “transport,” “cosmetics,” “cleaning products”), the judge must assess whether this category can be objectively divided into coherent and autonomous sub-categories based on their function or purpose.

For further insight on how assessing genuine  for autonomous subcategories of goods and services, please refer to our earlier article on this topic.

In many cases, applicants do not specify such subdivisions. However, the judge is not bound by this omission: he may itself define the sub-categories where this is  objectively justified. Consequently, the owner must prove genuine use for each identified sub-category, even if not explicitly stated in the initial wording of the registration.

Case study: the French Supreme Court decision of May 14, 2025 on “transport / passenger transport”

Facts

In the G7 case, the Groupe Rousselet owned the trademarks “G-7” and “G7,” both registered in Class 39 for “transport /  passengers transport”. Several companies (G7 Savoie, G7 Bourgogne, G7 Tractions) operated in refrigerated freight transport using “G7” as part of their company name.

Following an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought by Groupe Rousselet, these companies counterclaimed for revocation of the trademarks for non-use. The Court of appeal rejected the revocation claim, and the companies appealed to the French Supreme Court.

Analysis and legal implications

In its decision of May 14, 2025 decision, the French Supreme Court adopted a strict approach to revocation for non-use. It held that the Court of appeal erred in finding genuine use of the “G7” and “G-7” trademarks solely in connection with taxi services, without determining whether such services constituted an autonomous and coherent sub-category within the broader category of “transport /  passenger transport.”

Referring to the Ferrari case law, the Court reaffirmed that judges must, even on their own initiative, determine objectively and non-arbitrarily whether a registered category can be divided into distinct sub-categories.

This analysis must rely primarily on the purpose or intended use of the services, without being limited to the Nice Classification, which is only an indicative reference and administrative guideline. Consequently, the Court found that “proof of use limited to taxi transport services cannot justify maintaining protection for all transport services”.

By this decision, the French Supreme Court confirmed its alignment with European case law, imposing stricter scrutiny of genuine use. The ruling reinforces that trademark protection must remain proportionate to the actual use demonstrated, preventing overly broad registrations from granting unjustified monopolies that would unduly restrict competitors’ freedom to operate.

Strategic recommendations regarding evidentiary requirements

For each relevant sub-category, the trademark owner must gather specific documentation such as invoices by service type, brochures, targeted advertisements, internal reports by business segment, and where applicable, licence or maintenance agreements, spare-part offers, or after-sales service evidence. Each piece of evidence must be dated and directly linked to the relevant goods or services designated in the registration.

It is often advisable to limit the scope of protection at the time of filing or, at the very least, to anticipate and plan actual or intended use within specific divisions of goods or services.

Conclusion

When a trademark filing covers a wide category of goods or services, proving genuine use requires a meticulous and methodical approach: use must be demonstrated for each autonomous sub-category defined according to purpose and intended use. The French Supreme Court’s decision of May, 14 2025 heightens this standard for trademark owners with broad portfolios. A word of caution: insufficient evidence may expose your trademark to partial or total revocation.

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

FAQ

1. What is genuine use of a trademark?
Genuine use means real, continuous, and non-symbolic exploitation aimed at maintaining or developing market share for the goods or services designated in the trademark registration.

2. How can applicants limit the risk when filing a trademark application?
Avoid excessively broad specifications and favour precise, realistic descriptions that reflect the actual or planned commercial use.

3. What happens if the owner fails to prove use for certain sub-categories?
The trademark risks partial revocation: protection will remain only for the goods or services actually used. This rule prevents unjustified monopolisation of unused market segments.

4. Can use by a licensee or subsidiary be taken into account?
Yes. Use by a licensee, distributor, or subsidiary can be recognised as genuine use, if carried out with the trademark owner’s consent and maintains the trademark’s essential function of indicating commercial origin.

5. What if the trademark is used in a slightly modified form?
Use of a variant of the trademark is acceptable if the modifications do not alter its distinctive character. However, substantial visual or conceptual alterations may disqualify the use as genuine.

Introduction

The Rise of Kingdoms case illustrates a notable development in the protection of intellectual property rights in China. The Guangdong High People’s Court applied unfair competition law to punish the misappropriation of game mechanics and creative elements.

This decision marks a significant step forward in recognizing the economic value of video game creations and strengthens the prospects for compensation in the event of infringement of rights.

Hearthstone and Minecraft: landmark cases

Historically, Chinese courts have favored strict enforcement of copyright law to protect video game elements. The Hearthstone case marked a first shift in this approach.

Hearthstone (2014)

The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court has recognized, for the first time, that gameplay, i.e., the set of rules and mechanisms of a video game, can constitute a specific intellectual creation, requiring significant investments and representing significant commercial value.

Although protection was partially granted on the basis of copyright for certain illustrations and visual elements of the video game Hearthstone, the court also ruled that the defendant had promoted its game by appropriating distinctive features of Hearthstone. Such behavior exceeded the limits of lawful imitation and violated the principles of good faith and commercial ethics consecreated in unfair competition law.

Minecraft (2022)

In a case between Minecraft and Mini World, the Guangdong High Court rejected the copyright protection granted in the first instance and instead applied the grounds for unfair competition.

The court found that the two video games were virtually identical, both in terms of gameplay and visual elements, thus constituting an unfair capture of the creative and commercial value of the Minecraft game.

This decision illustrates a turning point in case law : when copyright is insufficient to protect game mechanics, Chinese courts now rely on unfair competition to punish parasitic behavior.

Rise of Kingdoms : Guangdong High Court ruling

In the Rise of Kingdoms case, the Guangdong High People’s Court clarified the distinction between an idea and its expression. The Court reiterated that gameplay is a set of ideas, systems, or methods, which remain excluded from copyright protection under Article 3 of the Chinese Copyright Law.

The case involved a typical case of game reskinning: a practice consisting of reusing the structure, mechanics, and progression of an existing game, modifying only the graphics or theme to make it appear to be a new work.

The court ruled that this excessive and systematic imitation undermined market order and constituted an act of unfair competition.

The court ordered the infringing developer to pay 168 million yuan (approximately €21.5 million) in damages, one of the highest compensation awards ever granted in China in the video game industry.

In order to regulate this type of behavior, the court has formulated a three-part standard for assessing unfair competition in the context of video games:

1. Identify the commercial value and creative effort of the original game.
2. Assess the impact of excessive imitation on market order.
3. Examine the violation of the principle of good faith and commercial ethics.

Good faith as a guiding principle

The Rise of Kingdoms ruling is consistent with the principles defined by the Supreme People’s Court of China. In its opinion of December 31, 2024, on the protection of technological innovation, article 18 reiterates that unfair competition law must be guided by the principles of good faith and business ethics in order to combat new forms of parasitism and promote an innovative and fair market.

As gameplays become more and more complex, copyright alone appears insufficient to protect studios’ intellectual investments.

The concept of unfair competition thus fills these gaps, offering more flexible protection tailored to the specific characteristics of the video game industry.

Conclusion

The Rise of Kingdoms case confirms the growing importance of unfair competition law in protecting digital creations in China.

In a constantly evolving sector, good faith becomes a key tool for ensuring a balance between reasonable borrowing, which is necessary to stimulate the market, and the protection of original innovation.

Chinese courts are thus affirming a pragmatic approach aimed at preserving the competitiveness and creativity of the video game 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 is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. What is “game reskinning”?
Game reskinning refers to modifying the appearance of an existing game, including its graphics, characters, sounds, and visual presentation, while keeping its internal structure unchanged (rules, objectives, obstacles, and rewards). The result gives the impression of a new game, even though it relies on the same underlying mechanics.

2. Can the rules or mechanics of a video game be protected by copyright in China?
No. According to the Guangdong High People’s Court, game mechanics are considered ideas, systems, or methods, and therefore do not fall under copyright protection. Only the specific visual representation of those mechanics, such as graphics, user interface, or sound design, can be protected.

3. If game mechanics are not protected by copyright, can they be freely copied?
Not exactly. While the imitation of game mechanics is not prohibited in itself, it may constitute unfair competition if it exceeds what is considered reasonable within the industry and causes significant harm to a competitor.

4. Why is good faith a central principle?
Because it allows legitimate inspiration to be distinguished from parasitism. Using key elements of a game without authorization to quickly launch a competing product and poach its players is contrary to good faith and may be punished.

5. What impact will this have on the video game industry?
It is no longer sufficient to rely solely on copyright to protect your game. Chinese courts now also use unfair competition law to punish certain abusive “reskinning” practices and can award significant damages.

Introduction

Blockchain evidence is currently attracting growing interest, particularly in copyright law, where questions of prior art and ownership is often crucial. But is blockchain really recognized as a valid form of evidence before French courts? In a decision handed down by the Marseille Judicial Court on March 20, 2025,  blockchain timestamping was accepted and legally recognized as legitimate evidence of  copyright ownership.

Legal basis for evidence

Under French law, the principle of freedom of evidence prevails. However, in matters where literal evidence is possible (including copyright), a minimum level of formality is required. Article 1358 of the French Civil Code provides that electronic documents are admissible as evidence in the same way as paper documents, provided that the author is identifiable and the integrity of the medium used is guaranteed.

Nevertheless, no French text yet expressly recognises blockchain as evidence. The legal framework surrounding blockchain evidence is therefore being shaped through the articulation between freedom of evidence, adaptation of evidentiary rules to technological developments, and emerging case law.

Blockchain as evidence in copyright litigation

Blockchain is a technology for storing and transmitting information, characterised by its decentralisation, transparency and security. Unlike centralised systems, it operates without a single controlling authority. Each transaction is recorded in a shared ledger, forming a chain of tamper-proof information.

Blockchain evidence works like a large, accessible and secure register, where each transaction is recorded in the form of “blocks” linked to each other. Each new block contains a unique cryptographic fingerprint (hash) of the previous block, forming a chain that is virtually immutable. The blockchain is replicated across thousands of nodes worldwide, making any unauthorized alteration practically impossible.

To learn more about how blockchain evidence works, please see our previously published article on the subject.

The Marseille Court decision of March 20, 2025: a turning point

In this case, AZ FACTORY accused Valeria Moda of marketing clothing featuring the designs of its “Hearts from Alber” and “Love from Alber” creations. These creations were highly evocative sketches created by Alber Ebaz, a renowned fashion designer.

AZ Factory had previously registered the sketches of these designs on the blockchain, fact later verified through a bailiff’s report produced during the proceedings.

In its decision of March 20, 2025, the Court recognised that blockchain timestamps could establish ownership of copyright. It held that registration on the blockchain, together with the corresponding record, was sufficiently reliable to demonstrate authorship and ownership, particularly when corroborated by other elements such as publication on social networks or trademarks appearing on the garments.

However, the Court specified that blockchain evidence was not considered in isolation: it was one element amongst a “block of evidence”. According to this decision, it is therefore not possible to consider blockchain registration as “pure” and independent evidence in itself, with significant legal force.

This decision can be described as “blockchain-friendly”: it opens the door to the use of this technology in intellectual property matters, while preserving the judge’s discretion in assessing evidentiary value.

Doctrinal perspectives and expected legislative developments

Activist scholars and practitioners advocate for legislative regulation to confer evidentiary value on certain reliable blockchain records. However, the challenge lies in defining the necessary technical conditions, such as the type of blockchain, audit mechanisms, and certification bodies, without unduly constraining the technology.

Conclusion

Blockchain-based evidence is now deemed admissible before French courts to establish the prior existence and ownership of a protected work, provided that the underlying technical system is reliable and the judge is convinced of its integrity. However, this type of evidence does not replace other elements of the “block of evidence”: its effectiveness depends on the quality of its implementation, the complementarity of the supporting evidence and the strength of the legal reasoning.

Key takeaway: blockchain registration is a valuable evidentiary, but not an absolute guarantee.

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

FAQ

1. Is it necessary to involve a bailiff when using blockchain as evidence?
It is highly recommended. A bailiff can certify that the file registered on the blockchain corresponds to the work in question and guarantee the integrity of the procedure.

2. What are the main advantages of blockchain-based evidence?

• Certain and tamper-proof dating of the work
• Immutability of the record
• International traceability without dependence on a national registry

3. What are the risks or limitations of using blockchain as evidence?

• Anonymity or pseudonymity of users, making it difficult to identify the author
• Lack of technical audit of the protocol
• Insufficient probative value if used in isolation without supporting evidenceTechnical complexity for jurisdictions unfamiliar with the technology

4. Is blockchain recognised as evidence in other countries?
Yes. China, Italy and the United States have already recognised the probative value of blockchain records, particularly for proof of prior art or ownership in copyright and patent matters. France is gradually aligning itself with this trend.

5. Can blockchain be used for all types of works (design, software, music)?
In theory, yes, provided that the use of blockchain is technically suitable and appropriately tailored to record and verify the specific type of work concerned.

Introduction

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the legal frameworks governing the protection of intellectual property rights are continuously evolving to keep pace with this global integration. Intellectual property laws in place ensure that the creators of these works are properly recognized and compensated for their efforts. International intellectual property laws are designed to protect the rights of creators and inventors around the world.

The main international treaties and conventions

The most widely accepted international intellectual property law is the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Convention. This treaty was signed by 169 countries in 1967 and updated in 1996. It outlines the rights of inventors, authors, and other creators of intellectual works. WIPO is the international authority that administers the Convention, which sets out the basic principles and rules of international intellectual property law. It also provides a framework for international cooperation on intellectual property issues and seeks to harmonize the different national intellectual property laws.

The WIPO Convention is supplemented by other treaties, such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (1961). These treaties are designed to help protect intellectual property rights in different types of works, such as artistic works, designs, and sound recordings.

Learn more about the Paris Convention or visit the WIPO website

Another key instrument for patent protection is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (1970). Administered by WIPO, the PCT allows inventors, through a single filing, to submit one. single patent application to seek patent protection in multiple countries simultaneously, thereby greatly simplifying procedures and reducing costs.

The TRIPS Agreement and trade-related intellectual property

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is another important international intellectual property law. This agreement, which was developed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), sets out the minimum standards for intellectual property protection that must be met by WTO member countries. It requires countries to provide certain levels of protection for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property.

Learn more WTO-TRIPS.

The regional and national dimensions

In addition to these international intellectual property laws, there are also regional agreements that provide protection for intellectual property rights. The European Union, for example, has its own set of laws that protect intellectual property rights. The European Union Intellectual Property Rights Directive seeks to harmonize the rules governing the protection of intellectual property in the EU (Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights).

Conclusion

In summary, a body of international, regional, and national rules governs the protection of the rights of authors, inventors, and other creators of intellectual works. These legal frameworks aim to ensure the effective recognition of their rights and to provide fair remuneration in return for their creations.

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 is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property. Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1.What is the WIPO and what is its role ?

The WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) is a United Nations authority responsible for promoting the protection of intellectual property worldwide. It administers several international treaties, including the Paris Convention and the Berne Convention.

2.What is the difference between the Berne Convention (1886) and the Paris Convention (1883) ?

The Berne Convention protects literary and artistic works (copyright), while the Paris Convention focuses on the protection of industrial property (such as patents, trademarks, and industrial designs).

3.Are intellectual property rules harmonized worldwide?

Not exactly. There are international treaties to harmonize the rules, but each country has its own national legislation. The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards that must be followed by all WTO member countries (World Trade Organization).

4.Where can the various legislative texts and international treaties on intellectual property be consulted ?

The TRIPS Agreement can be accessed on the World Trade Organization (WTO) website.

Overview and legal framework

Spare parts

Spare parts are components that replace or restore the appearance of complex products, such as vehicles, electronic devices, or household appliances.

Evolution of legislation

Under the Climate and Resilience Act No. 2021-1104 of August 22, 2021, whose provisions came into force on January 1, 2023, certain articles of the French Intellectual Property Code have been amended:

• Article L.513-6, 4°, of the French Intellectual Property Code : this article now specifies that the rights conferred by the registration of a design cannot be invoked against acts aimed at restoring the original appearance of a motor vehicle or trailer, when such acts concern glazing-related parts or are carried out by the equipment manufacturer who manufactured the original part.
• Article L.122-5, 12°, of the French Intellectual Property Code : this article provides, in particular, that once a work has been disclosed, the author may not prohibit the reproduction, use, or marketing of parts intended to restore the original appearance of a motor vehicle or trailer.

These articles enable the creation of a repair clause that exempts “essential spare parts” from design and copyright protection in order to promote competition and support the objectives of the circular economy.

As a result, independent suppliers are allowed to manufacture and sell spare parts (such as headlights, rearview mirrors, and bumpers) without infringing on registered designs, provided that no logos or protected signs remain affixed.

For further information on the legal framework applicable to spare parts, we invite you to consult our previously published article

Application of the repair clause

The facts and procedure              

In a decision dated June 11, 2025 (n°23-83.474), the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation handed down a major decision clarifying the temporal application of the repair clause.

In this case, a subsidiary of a Spanish group specialized in the manufacture of original equipment for three French car manufacturers, resold rearview mirrors produced by this group without authorization. The car manufacturers then sued the company, which was found guilty of infringing designs, copyright, and trademarks by the criminal court. The Court of Appeal acquitted the defendants on the following grounds:

• Regarding the infringement of design rights, the judges applied Article L. 513-6, 4°, of the Intellectual Property Code as amended by the aforementioned law of August 22, 2021.
• Regarding the infringement of copyright, the judges applied Article L. 122-5, 12°, of the Intellectual Property Code, as amended by the aforementioned law of August 22, 2021.
• Regarding trademark infringement, the judges specified that the Spanish group itself had removed the reference to the trademarks or logos of the French car manufacturers from the rearview mirrors.

Retroactivity of the repair clause

Application of the more lenient criminal law

The Court of Appeal noted that the Climate and Resilience Act of August 22, 2021, , constitutes a criminal law when it has the effect of modifying the constituent elements of the infringement.

In this decision, the judges applied the provisions of the Climate and Resilience Act of August 22, 2021, even though the events took place before it came into force (scheduled for January 1, 2023). The judges then specified that Articles L. 513-6, 4° and L. 122-5, 12° of the Intellectual Property Code reduced the scope of the offense charged against the manufacturer of spare parts, which constitutes a more lenient criminal law that can be applied immediately in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 112-1, paragraph 3, of the French Criminal Code.

The legitimacy of retroactive application of the repair clause

The judges specified that this retroactivity is not contrary to the protection of property rights, guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, the amendments made by the aforementioned law of August 22, 2021, constitute a proportionate infringement of the legitimate aim pursued, as demonstrated by the parliamentary proceedings, which sought through this law to open up the market for visible spare parts to competition.

Furthermore, the judges legitimately considered that these provisions were applicable not only to the original equipment manufacturer, i.e., the Spanish group, but also to the commercial chain linking the latter to the consumer, and in particular the subsidiary being prosecuted, without disregarding the principle of strict interpretation of criminal law.

Conclusion

This decision therefore provides further clarification on the repair clause:

• The repair clause may be applied retroactively and may apply to acts committed before January 1, 2023
• The repair clause applies to the entire commercial chain linking the original equipment manufacturer to the consumer

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

FAQ

1. Does the repair clause only apply to motor vehicles, or can it be extended to other sectors (household appliances, electronics, etc.) ?

Currently, the repair clause provided for in the Intellectual Property Code only applies to motor vehicles and trailers. An extension to other sectors is not ruled out, but it would require specific legislative or regulatory reform.

2. Does the repair clause exist in other European countries?

Yes, several EU Member States, such as Germany, already have similar exceptions for visible parts, and harmonization is planned under European law to ensure the free movement of spare parts.

3. What must companies do to comply ?

They must verify that distinctive signs have been removed, ensure that the parts concerned fall within the scope of the exception, and adapt their contracts and internal procedures to this new regulation.

4. Does the repair clause only benefit independent suppliers ?

No. It benefits all operators, including original equipment manufacturers and the entire commercial chain, provided that the legal conditions are met.

5. What are the advantages for consumers ?

The repair clause promotes competition, reduces the cost of visible spare parts, stimulates the circular economy, and broadens the range of spare parts available on the market.

Introduction

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various sectors, including the creative industries. AI systems are now capable of producing artworks, music, literature, and more, raising a pivotal question: Can artificial intelligence hold copyrights? This inquiry delves into the core of intellectual property law, challenging traditional notions of authorship and ownership.

Understanding Copyright Law

Definition and purpose

Copyright law is designed to protect the rights of creators over their original works, encompassing literature, art, music, and other creative expressions. It grants authors exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display their creations, thereby incentivizing innovation and cultural development.

Criteria for copyright protection

For a work to qualify for copyright protection, it must meet specific criteria:

• Originality: The work must be independently created and possess a minimal degree of creativity.
• Fixation: The work must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, making it perceptible for more than a transitory duration.

The role of human authorship

Human creativity and originality

Traditionally, copyright law has been predicated on human creativity. The concept of authorship is intrinsically linked to human intellect and personality, reflecting the creator’s unique expression.

Legal precedents emphasizing human authorship

Various legal systems have underscored the necessity of human involvement in authorship. For instance the French Intellectual property code states that only natural persons can be recognized as authors, thereby excluding non-human entities from holding copyrights.

AI-Generated works: A legal perspective

The process of AI creation

AI systems, particularly those employing machine learning algorithms, generate content by analyzing vast datasets and identifying patterns. While the output may resemble human-created works, it is produced through computational processes without human creativity.

Case studies and judicial decisions

The legal status of AI-generated works has been the subject of judicial scrutiny:

• United States: The U.S. Copyright Office has consistently denied copyright protection to works lacking human authorship. In a notable case, the Office refused registration for a work created by an AI system, emphasizing that copyright law protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” grounded in human creativity.
• China: Contrastingly, the Beijing Internet Court, on November 27, 2023, recognized copyright in an AI-generated image, attributing authorship to the individual who provided the input prompts to the AI system. The court reasoned that the person’s selection and arrangement of prompts constituted sufficient intellectual contribution to warrant copyright protection.

International approaches to AI and Copyright

The U.S. maintains a firm stance that human authorship is a prerequisite for copyright protection. The Copyright Office’s Compendium explicitly states that works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process without creative input or intervention from a human author are not registrable.

The EU has not yet established a unified position on AI-generated works. However, the emphasis remains on human creativity, with current directives implying that AI-generated content without human authorship does not qualify for copyright protection. This position was recently reaffirmed by the Municipal Court in Prague, which ruled on October 11, 2023, that an image created using the AI tool DALL-E could not be granted copyright protection under Czech law. The court reasoned that, as AI-generated content lacks human creative intervention, it does not meet the necessary requirements for copyright eligibility. This decision reinforces the notion that, within the EU, copyright remains inherently tied to human authorship.

As previously mentioned, China’s judiciary has shown a willingness to extend copyright protection to AI-generated works under certain conditions, particularly when there is demonstrable human involvement in the creation process.

Challenges and Considerations

Defining authorship in AI creations

The emergence of AI-generated content challenges the traditional definition of authorship. Determining who holds the rights to such works—be it the developer of the AI, the user who inputs prompts, or the AI itself—remains a contentious issue.

Implications for Intellectual Property Law

The current legal frameworks may require adaptation to address the complexities introduced by AI. This includes re-evaluating concepts of originality, creativity, and authorship to ensure that the law continues to incentivize innovation while protecting creators’ rights.

Conclusion

While artificial intelligence has made significant strides in creative fields, it cannot hold copyrights under existing legal frameworks. Copyright law is fundamentally designed to protect human creativity, and AI, lacking consciousness and intent, does not meet the criteria for authorship. As AI technology continues to evolve, it is imperative for legal systems to re-examine and possibly redefine concepts of authorship and creativity to address the challenges posed by AI-generated works.

The Dreyfus Law Firm partners with a global network of IP-specialized lawyers.
Follow us on social media!

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Can artificial intelligence (AI) have copyright?

No, artificial intelligence (AI) cannot hold copyright. Under French, European, and most international copyright laws as in United States, protection is granted only to works created by a human author. Copyright requires originality, which is legally defined as the result of human intellectual effort. Since AI operates autonomously, works generated by AI alone are not eligible for copyright protection. However, if a human plays a significant role in the creative process, they may claim rights over the AI-generated content under certain conditions.

2. Why does AI pose a threat to copyright law?

AI challenges copyright law in several ways. First, AI models are trained on vast datasets containing copyrighted works, often without permission from rights holders, raising concerns about copyright infringement. Second, AI-generated content (such as text, images, and music) blurs the line between human and machine creativity, making it harder to determine what qualifies for copyright protection. Lastly, the mass production of AI-generated content can devalue copyrighted works by flooding the market with non-attributable creations. These issues call for clearer legal frameworks to balance innovation with copyright enforcement.

3. Are AI-generated images copyright-free?

No, AI-generated images are not necessarily copyright-free. If an image is created solely by an AI without significant human input, it may not qualify for copyright protection under current laws. However, the platforms generating these images often impose usage restrictions through their terms of service. Additionally, if an AI model produces an image that closely resembles or is derived from copyrighted works, it could constitute copyright infringement. It is crucial to review the licensing terms of AI-generated images and ensure compliance before using them commercially.

4. What is the relationship between AI and copyright law?

AI is reshaping copyright law and intellectual property rights. It challenges fundamental legal concepts such as authorship, originality, and infringement. AI also raises concerns about fair use and the rights of creators whose works are used to train machine learning models. Legislators, particularly in Europe with the AI Act, are working to regulate AI’s impact on copyright and establish legal clarity. Emerging solutions include granting copyright to humans involved in AI-assisted creation and developing specific licenses for AI-generated content. The ongoing legal evolution aims to balance technological advancements with the protection of creators’ rights.