News

How to protect a domain name?

In today’s digital landscape, having a strong online presence is essential for virtually every business.
The domain name is not just a technical address but rather a strategic asset and the first impression many customers get when interacting with your brand on the internet. Losing control over your domain name or failing to protect it adequately can lead to severe consequences such as lost traffic, reputational harm, or even costly legal disputes.

In this extensive guide (up to 10,000 words), we will explore all facets of domain name protection – from the relevant legal framework (covering aspects like unfair competition and trademark infringement) to practical strategies for ensuring a proactive defense (monitoring, recovering expired domains, multiple TLD registrations, etc.) and handling complex issues (UDRP, Syreli, conflicts with prior or subsequent trademarks).

Specifically, we’ll cover:

  • Why protecting a domain name is crucial;
  • Relevant legal and regulatory bases (such as article L.45 of the CPCE for .fr domains in France, the Intellectual Property Code, etc.);
  • The differences between a domain name vs. an earlier or later trademark;
  • Best practices for securing and monitoring your digital portfolio;
  • The role of unfair competition and trademark infringement actions to enforce your rights;
  • Recovering an expired or third-party-held domain name through auctions, backorders, or legal proceedings;
  • A thorough FAQ addressing key questions (e.g., “How do I prove domain name ownership?” “What are the three components of a domain name?”).

We’ll reinforce everything with practical examples and statistics (such as the number of disputes handled through the UDRP, average resolution times, etc.). Finally, we’ll illustrate how a specialized firm like Dreyfus can help ensure robust and lasting protection of your online presence.

 


1. Why Is Domain Name Protection So Critical?

In a highly competitive digital world, your domain name represents the core of your brand’s online footprint. It serves as a unique identifier for search engines and internet users. Losing control of your domain name can result in:

  • Loss of visibility: If a third party registers a confusingly similar name, it can siphon off your web traffic or create consumer confusion.
  • Reputational damage: A cybersquatter might host malicious or defamatory content under a domain that people associate with your brand.
  • Exorbitant costs: Legal or extrajudicial recoveries can be lengthy and expensive, with no guaranteed outcome.
  • Risk of legal sanction: If you accidentally infringe on someone else’s earlier trademark by using a conflicting domain, you could face a lawsuit and potential liability.

According to a Verisign study, there were about 350 million registered domain names globally (across all TLDs) by the end of 2022. Every day, over 100,000 new domains are created, while thousands expire or change registrants. In this dynamic environment, vigilance is paramount.


2.1. Article L.45 of the CPCE

In France, Article L.45 of the Code des postes et des communications électroniques (CPCE), accessible on Legifrance, grants AFNIC authority over national extensions (.fr, .re, etc.). Its guiding principles include:

  • Compliance with public order;
  • Non-infringement of third-party rights (trademarks, corporate names, etc.);
  • Transparency and non-discrimination in domain allocation;
  • An option for alternative dispute resolution methods (Syreli, PARL Expert) in case of conflict.

2.2. Intellectual Property Code (CPI)

The Intellectual Property Code (CPI) applies when a domain name conflicts with a prior IP right, such as a trademark. Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 address trademark infringement, including unauthorized use of a distinctive sign that is confusingly similar or identical to an existing trademark. A domain name can be a “distinctive sign,” so using it without permission to market similar goods/services can constitute infringement if confusion is likely.

2.3. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code (ex 1382)

When you do not have a registered trademark, you may still sue an imitator under unfair competition principles (based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code). This requires showing a fault (imitation, confusion, parasitism) plus damage and a causal link. This approach is commonly used if two domains in the same business sector cause confusion or if one party is free-riding on another’s reputation.


3. Domain Name vs. Trademark: Earlier or Later Rights

DOMAIN NAME VS. EARLIER TRADEMARK

If there is an earlier trademark (valid and registered) and you register a domain name that is identical or highly similar for related goods/services, you risk trademark infringement. Courts worldwide consistently condemn domain owners who hijack a brand’s recognition or create confusion with an established mark.

DOMAIN NAME VS. LATER TRADEMARK

Conversely, if you have been actively using a domain name for years (even without a trademark registration), and someone else later decides to file a trademark that is identical or closely similar to your domain name, you can sometimes rely on your prior usage to challenge or invalidate that later trademark. You must demonstrate substantial and continuous usage, e.g., website archives, commercial documents, etc.


4. Key Steps to Protect and Secure Your Domain Name

4.1. Prior Checks and Searches

Before registering a domain name, it’s essential to perform:

  • A WHOIS lookup to confirm availability and identify any existing owner;
  • A review of trademark databases (e.g., INPI for France, EUIPO for the EU, WIPO internationally) to avoid conflicts;
  • A check of commercial registers (e.g., Infogreffe in France) for similar corporate names.

This preliminary step reduces the risk of inadvertently infringing earlier rights.

4.2. Choosing the Right TLD

The .fr extension is pivotal in France, while .com remains a global favorite. New TLDs (nTLDs) like .tech, .shop, or .city can refine your branding strategy but be aware of cybersquatting if they aren’t also protected.

4.3. Technical and Administrative Security

Many disputes stem from negligence such as forgetting to renew a domain. We strongly recommend automatic renewal with your registrar and enabling registry lock or transfer lock. Limit domain management to trustworthy personnel so an employee can’t transfer ownership to their personal name or a competitor.

4.4. Registering a Trademark if Necessary

If your domain name is a crucial branding element, registering it as a trademark with the INPI (France) or under the Madrid system (international) significantly enhances protection. In any potential dispute, you can pursue a trademark infringement action rather than relying solely on unfair competition.


5. Unfair Competition Actions

Unfair competition is based on civil liability rules (cf. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, formerly Article 1382). It’s particularly relevant when you don’t have a trademark registration, or the mark’s scope doesn’t fully apply to the domain conflict.

5.1. Elements to Prove

  • Fault: e.g., imitation, creating confusion, or parasitism of your brand or domain;
  • Damage: lost customers, reputational harm, or traffic diversion;
  • Causation: the defendant’s conduct is the direct cause of the harm.

5.2. Illustrative Ruling

Paris High Court (TGI), January 10, 2017 (RG No. 15/07963):
The company operating exemple-luxe.com sued exempledeluxe.fr for unfair competition, alleging that the domain caused confusion among consumers. The court sided with the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to cease using the infringing domain and pay damages.

5.3. Advantages and Drawbacks

Unfair competition is flexible and doesn’t require showing a registered IP title like a trademark. However, proving actual harm (loss, confusion) can sometimes be more demanding than trademark infringement, which relies on the existence of a valid earlier mark to demonstrate a direct violation.


6. Trademark Infringement Actions

If you hold an earlier registered trademark, a trademark infringement lawsuit often provides a stronger remedy than unfair competition. You would invoke Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 of the French IP Code. Infringement requires you to prove:

  • A valid prior trademark;
  • Unauthorized use of an identical or confusingly similar sign;
  • A likelihood of confusion among the relevant public or (for famous marks) a risk of diluting the mark’s distinctiveness.

6.1. Proving Mark Existence

You need to show that your trademark is duly registered and not subject to invalidation or non-use cancellation. If the defendant challenges the trademark (arguing you haven’t used it for over five years, for instance), you may have to demonstrate genuine use to maintain your rights.

6.2. Example Ruling

Paris Court of Appeal, March 2, 2020 (RG No. 18/26345):
The domain marqueXYZ-online.com infringed the earlier trademark “MARQUEXYZ,” as it created a likelihood of confusion. The court ordered transfer of the domain and awarded damages to the trademark owner.

6.3. Scope of Application

Trademark infringement typically applies to commercial use of the domain name. If the domain is used non-commercially or in a completely different industry, confusion may be harder to establish. But for well-known (famous) marks, protection can extend to dissimilar goods/services if there is risk of tarnishment or dilution.


7. Why Monitor Your Domain Names?

Proactive monitoring of your domain(s) (or an entire domain portfolio) involves setting up alerts or scanning systems to foresee or detect:

  • Impending expiration: so you can renew in time and avoid losing the domain to a third party;
  • Cybersquatting: unscrupulous individuals may register near-identical domains (typosquatting, brandjacking);
  • Brand abuse: if new domains incorporate your brand or a misleading segment thereof;
  • Excessive resale prices: squatters may try to extort large sums if you let your domain lapse or if you need to buy it back quickly.

7.1. Services and Tools

Many registrars provide a “watch service” or specialized monitoring solutions.
You can also implement custom scripts or sign up for WHOIS alerts.
The AFNIC (the .fr registry) offers additional monitoring tools for .fr extension domains.

7.2. Recommended Practices

As part of a global strategy, consider:

  • Centralized management: using a single or limited set of registrars to keep track of all your domains.
  • Documentation: maintaining an up-to-date record (spreadsheet or dedicated software) of each domain’s expiration date, contact info, and relevant legal notes.
  • Team training: ensuring your legal department and IT staff coordinate domain naming, renewals, and brand protection effectively.

8. Recovering an Expired or Third-Party Domain Name

Losing a domain name due to non-renewal or seeing it snatched by a malicious party can be challenging, but not always irreversible. Let’s explore the different methods to recover your domain name and how to keep it safe thereafter.

What Is Domain Recovery?

Domain recovery refers to the process of regaining or reacquiring a domain name that was previously held by someone else or had expired and returned to the public pool. Recovery can take the form of:

  • Amiable negotiations: contacting the current registrant to purchase the domain directly;
  • Auctions or backorder platforms: capturing domains in redemption phase or pending delete, often competing with other potential buyers;
  • Extrajudicial proceedings (UDRP, Syreli) if the domain is used in bad faith and violates your rights;
  • Judicial actions for unfair competition or infringement, if the domain is maliciously exploiting your brand or trade name.

Practical Steps to Recover an Expired Domain

  1. Identify the domain’s current phase:
    • Grace period: the original owner may still renew;
    • Redemption period: domain is suspended but not publicly available;
    • Pending delete: domain is set to be released soon;
    • Released or auction phase: domain re-enters open registration or is up for bidding.
  2. Select your approach:
    • Backorder via specialized platforms like SnapNames, Dropcatch, etc.;
    • Participate in any auction if the registrar holds a bidding process;
    • Register the domain directly if it’s fully released to the public.
  3. Finalize acquisition:
    • Once recovered, set up DNS, verify WHOIS listing you as the registrant;
    • Enable auto-renew and domain lock to prevent losing it again.

How to Determine if a Domain Is Available for Recovery?

You can use dedicated tracking services such as Nom-domaine.fr or Domain Tools to check a domain’s actual status (active, redemption, pending delete). Some backorder services provide real-time status and will notify you once the domain is open for new registration or is in an auction phase.
In general, the domain is “available” if it is fully dropped and no longer in a grace or redemption period.

Note that popular or high-value domains can attract multiple bidders the moment they drop, so speed is essential to secure them.


9. Handling Disputes (UDRP, Syreli, Arbitration, Courts)

When a conflict arises — e.g., you believe someone else’s domain infringes your brand, or you’re accused of infringing a prior right — you have several options:

  • Extrajudicial proceedings:
    • UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy): for gTLDs like .com, .net, .org. Typically handled by ICANN-approved dispute centers such as WIPO.

      Duration: about 2–3 months.

      Outcome: transfer or cancellation of the domain if bad faith, no legitimate interest, and confusing similarity are proven.

    • Syreli or PARL Expert with AFNIC for .fr.

      Decisions often within a few weeks to a few months.

      Remedy: domain transfer or deletion if the domain violates L.45 CPCE or third-party rights.

  • Judicial options:
    • Unfair competition (Civil Code, art. 1240), if no trademark but confusion or parasitism is established;
    • Trademark infringement (CPI L.713-2, L.713-3), if you hold an earlier trademark;
    • Arbitration if a contract or prior agreement stipulates it.

According to WIPO, about 65–70% of UDRP cases result in the complainant’s favor, often leading to domain transfer. Meanwhile, AFNIC indicates that “several hundred” Syreli or PARL Expert cases occur each year for .fr, with the majority concluding in transfer or cancellation where the domain clearly infringes a prior right or is used in bad faith.


For a broader view of the phenomenon, here are a few data points:

  • Globally, about 350 million domains were registered across all TLDs by the end of 2022 (source: Verisign).
  • An estimated 3–5% of these are so-called “speculative” registrations, often used for parking, reselling, or cybersquatting (figures vary by TLD).
  • WIPO handled 5,500–6,000 UDRP domain disputes in 2022, reflecting a continuous rise year over year.
  • In the .fr space, “several hundred” Syreli/PARL Expert complaints are filed annually, mostly due to brand or trade name conflicts.

This highlights a strong momentum: disputes are increasing as digitalization expands, making anticipation and prevention the best ways to mitigate risk.


11. Comprehensive FAQ

How Do I Prove Ownership of a Domain Name?

Typically, you check the WHOIS record. The official registrant is shown there (often under “Registrant” or “Owner”). If you appear as the registrant, that is legal proof of ownership. Additionally, keep invoices, emails with your registrar, and historical screenshots to strengthen evidence in case of dispute.

How Do I Protect a Domain Name During a Conflict?

Depending on the context:

  • UDRP or Syreli extrajudicial proceedings: if you show the domain was registered in bad faith and lacks legitimate interest by the respondent, it can be transferred to you.
  • Trademark infringement action: if you own a prior mark. Courts may order cessation of use, domain transfer, and damages.
  • Unfair competition: to show confusion or parasitism under civil liability rules.
  • Amiable negotiation: sometimes buying the domain from its current holder is the fastest solution.

What Is the Validity Condition for a Domain Name?

From a technical standpoint, the domain must meet syntax and length rules. Legally, it must not violate public policy or others’ prior rights (Article L.45 CPCE). AFNIC can revoke or transfer a .fr if those conditions are breached.

What Are the 3 Components of a Domain Name?

Typically, a domain name is structured as follows:

  • Subdomain (e.g., “www” or any other custom subdomain)
  • The second-level name (e.g., “example”)
  • The TLD (e.g., “.fr,” “.com,” “.net”)

So “www.example.fr” is divided into “www” (subdomain), “example” (root), and “.fr” (extension).

What Happens If I Don’t Monitor My Domain Name?

Without regular monitoring, you could:

  • Accidentally let it expire and lose it to a competitor or cybersquatter;
  • Remain unaware of near-identical domain registrations (typosquatting, brandjacking);
  • Face stolen traffic or reputational harm;
  • Pay exorbitant fees if forced to buy it back or engage in litigation.

How Do I Know If a Domain Name Is Expired or About to Expire?

Check the WHOIS record for the domain’s expiration date. Certain services (like ExpiredDomains.net) list domains nearing expiration or in redemption. Also, many registrars provide reminders or notifications for upcoming renewals.

How Long Does a UDRP Case Typically Last?

On average, 2–3 months. WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) handles most disputes. The panel reviews the complainant’s and the respondent’s statements. Where the complainant proves bad faith and no legitimate interest, the panel typically orders transfer or cancellation of the domain.

How Many Cases Does WIPO Handle Each Year?

WIPO deals with 5,500–6,000 domain disputes annually under the UDRP. This figure has been steadily increasing, reflecting the expansion of digital commerce and domain speculation.

What If My .fr Domain Is Being Used by Someone Else?

You can:

  • File a complaint under Syreli (handled by AFNIC) or PARL Expert for a quick extrajudicial resolution.
  • Consider a court action based on unfair competition or infringement if a trademark is involved.

Procedures typically evaluate whether the domain violates L.45 CPCE or prior rights. If so, they can order a transfer or deletion.


12. Conclusion and Contact

This guide has taken you through the **complex realm** of domain name protection and recovery, covering:

  • Legal frameworks in France (CPCE, IP Code) and relevant guidelines for TLDs;
  • Practical strategies (monitoring, locks, multiple TLD coverage) to stay proactive;
  • Legal actions (unfair competition, trademark infringement), along with extrajudicial options (UDRP, Syreli);
  • Domain recovery (through auctions, backorder services, or negotiations) when a domain expires or is held by a third party;
  • Statistics illustrating how domain disputes keep rising globally.

The key is a proactive approach: verifying availability, implementing robust security measures, and staying alert via monitoring. Engaging a specialized law firm can be invaluable for drafting an effective UDRP complaint, managing a Syreli dispute, litigating in court, or generally structuring your online portfolio’s legal defenses.

Looking for customized support?
Contact Dreyfus now to safeguard your domain names effectively.
Our team provides deep expertise in domain name law, trademark law, and IP strategy, ensuring your digital assets are fully protected and your rights enforced.

Read More

Customs Surveillance in Intellectual Property Matters

In today’s globalized economy, the protection of intellectual property rights is essential for businesses seeking to safeguard their trademarks, innovations, and creative works. With the increasing flow of goods across borders, infringed products and infringements on trademarks, patents, and copyrights pose significant risks to legitimate rights holders. Customs authorities play a critical role in enforcing intellectual property rights by identifying and detaining suspected counterfeit goods before they enter the market.

This article explores the mechanisms of customs surveillance, detailing how customs detention operates, the legal frameworks supporting intellectual property protection, and the procedures for filing an Application for Action (AFA) with customs services. Understanding these processes allows businesses to enhance their anti-counterfeiting strategies and protect their intellectual assets effectively.

I – Understanding customs detention

What is Customs Detention? Customs detention is the process by which customs authorities intercept and hold goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights at a country’s border. This process prevents counterfeit goods from being imported, exported, or transshipped, reducing financial and reputational damage to rights holders and ensuring consumer safety.

Customs officials may detain goods ex officio (on their own initiative) or at the request of a rights holder who has filed an Application for Action (AFA). Once detained, the rights holder is notified and given the opportunity to examine the goods and provide evidence of infringement.

Legal basis for customs detention

In the European Union, customs detention is governed by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, which outlines procedures customs authorities must follow when seizing counterfeit or pirated goods.

Key provisions include:

  • Customs officials may intervene when they suspect an infringement of intellectual property right as trademark, patent, copyright, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models, supplementary protection certificates for medicines and plant protection products, new plant varieties, designations of origin, geographical indications and geographical denominations and design rights.
  • Goods can be detained for up to 10 working days (extendable by another 10 days in some cases) while rights holders assess the infringement.
  • If the rights holder confirms the goods are counterfeit, legal action can be pursued, including destruction of the goods.

Beyond the EU, similar regulations exist in many jurisdictions, such as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement mechanisms under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA).

II – Protection of intellectual property rights by customs authorities

Legal framework

The enforcement of intellectual property rights at borders is an international effort supported by several legal instruments, including:

Scope of protection

Customs authorities have the power to act against various types of IP infringements, such as:

  • Trademark infringements : unauthorized use of registered trademarks on counterfeit products (ex : Fake luxury handbags bearing a registered brand’s logo).
  • Patent infringements : importation of products infringing on a granted patent (ex : Unauthorized production of pharmaceutical drugs protected by a patent).
  • Design infringements : copying of registered industrial designs without authorization (ex : Knockoff furniture replicating a well-known designer’s work).

III – Filing an application for action with customs services

Eligibility and requirements

Rights holders, including individuals, companies, and trade associations, can file an Application for Action (AFA) requesting customs authorities to monitor and intercept infringing goods.

An AFA must include:

  • Proof of Ownership: Trademark or patent certificates.
  • Technical Specifications: Unique features of the authentic goods.
  • Known Infringements: Reports of prior counterfeit activity.
  • Contact Details: Representatives must be available to assist customs.

Procedure for Submission

  1. Obtain an EORI number: Required for all customs transactions.
  2. Complete the AFA form: Available through national customs portals. In France, all the information you need is available on the Customs and Excise portal.
  3. Submit electronically: Via the IP Enforcement Portal (IPEP).
  4. Approval & implementation: Customs reviews the application, and if accepted, begins monitoring for infringements.

Duration and renewal

  • An AFA is valid for one year and must be renewed annually.
  • Renewal requires updated information on counterfeit risks and authorized suppliers.

IV – Best Practices for Enhancing Customs monitoring

To maximize customs intervention effectiveness, rights holders should:

  • Conduct regular IP audits: Ensure all trademarks and patents are up to date.
  • Train customs officials: Provide guides and images to help identify counterfeits.
  • Monitor supply chains: Collaborate with customs to track high-risk shipments.
  • Use technology: Employ blockchain and AI-based tracking for better enforcement.

Conclusion

Customs monitoring is a vital tool for protecting intellectual property rights from counterfeiting and piracy. By proactively filing an AFA, businesses can leverage customs enforcement to block the import and export of infringing goods, safeguarding their brands and innovations.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, our team of intellectual property experts is dedicated to guiding businesses through the customs enforcement process. We provide tailored support for filing AFAs, monitoring customs interventions, and enforcing rights against counterfeiters. Our global network of IP attorneys ensures comprehensive protection in multiple jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

1 – What are the three main missions of customs?

Customs have three primary missions: • A fiscal mission: Customs collect and monitor duties, import VAT, and excise taxes, contributing to the national and European Union budget. • An economic mission: Customs facilitate and secure trade by enforcing import and export regulations while ensuring fair competition and economic competitiveness. • A protection mission: Customs combat fraud, protect consumers, and ensure national security by inspecting dangerous, prohibited, or counterfeit goods.

2 – How can intellectual property rights be protected?

The protection of intellectual property (IP) rights involves several key steps: • Registering rights: Filing a trademark, patent, or design with the appropriate offices (INPI, EUIPO, WIPO) grants exclusive rights to the owner. • Market monitoring: Implementing surveillance strategies to detect counterfeits both online and offline. • Customs enforcement: Filing an application for action with customs authorities allows them to seize suspected counterfeit goods. • Legal actions: In case of infringement, right holders can initiate legal proceedings, including seizure of counterfeit goods and civil or criminal lawsuits.

3 – What tools are available to protect intellectual property?

Several tools help reinforce IP protection: • Customs Application for Action (AFA – Action in Favor of Right Holders): This procedure enables IP owners to notify customs about suspicious goods and facilitate counterfeit seizures. • Online monitoring platforms: Various tools help identify counterfeit products sold on marketplaces and social media. • Training and awareness programs: Right holders can collaborate with customs to train officers in detecting counterfeit goods. • Cooperation with authorities: Agreements between IP owners, customs, and law enforcement enhance the fight against counterfeiting.

4 – What is the role of customs in the fight against infringement?

Customs play a crucial role in combating counterfeiting by enforcing border controls and intercepting illicit goods: • Goods inspections: Customs officers check imports and exports to identify suspicious products. • Seizures of counterfeit goods: When counterfeits are detected, customs can seize and destroy the illicit merchandise. • Collaboration with rights holders: Businesses and trademark owners can report counterfeit products to customs through the application for action process. • Awareness campaigns: Customs regularly conduct information campaigns to educate consumers and businesses about the risks of counterfeit products. Customs are a key player in intellectual property protection, working alongside businesses and authorities to secure markets and combat fraud.

Read More

Artificial Intelligence as a Legal Assistant

In the rapidly evolving landscape of legal services, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force, particularly in the realm of intellectual property (IP) law.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the legal sector signifies a paradigm shift, offering tools that augment the capabilities of legal professionals. In the field of intellectual property, where precision and efficiency are paramount, AI serves as a catalyst for innovation and improved client service.

I – The role of AI in legal assistance

Automation of repetitive tasks

AI excels in automating routine tasks that traditionally consume significant time and resources. Document review, contract analysis, and due diligence are now expedited through AI-driven platforms, allowing legal practitioners to focus on more complex and strategic activities. For instance, AI can swiftly analyze vast amounts of legal documents to identify relevant information, thereby reducing the time spent on manual reviews.

Predictive analytics in legal decision-making

Beyond automation, AI offers predictive analytics capabilities that assist in forecasting legal outcomes. By analyzing historical case data, AI models can predict the likelihood of success in litigation, enabling lawyers to devise informed strategies. This predictive power is particularly beneficial in intellectual property disputes, where understanding potential case trajectories can inform negotiation and litigation approaches.

II – Impact on intellectual property consultancy

Enhancing efficiency and accuracy

In the realm of intellectual property consultancy, AI enhances both efficiency and accuracy. AI-powered tools can conduct comprehensive prior art searches, ensuring that patent applications are both novel and non-infringing. Additionally, AI aids in monitoring potential IP infringements by scanning global databases and marketplaces, providing timely alerts to rights holders. This proactive approach enables IP consultants to offer clients robust protection strategies.

Challenges and ethical considerations

While AI offers numerous benefits, its integration into legal services presents challenges and ethical considerations. Concerns regarding data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of client trust must be addressed. Legal professionals are tasked with ensuring that AI applications comply with existing regulations and uphold the profession’s ethical standards. This includes maintaining transparency in AI-driven analyses and safeguarding sensitive client information.

III – Recent governmental initiatives

National AI Strategies

Governments worldwide recognize the transformative potential of AI and are formulating strategies to harness its benefits responsibly. For example, the French government has launched a national AI strategy aimed at fostering innovation while ensuring ethical deployment across sectors, including the legal domain. Indeed, an information report titled “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Professions” was adopted on December 18, 2024. This strategy encompasses investments in AI research, development of regulatory frameworks, and initiatives to upskill the workforce in AI competencies.

Regulatory frameworks and compliance

To navigate the complexities of AI integration, regulatory bodies are establishing frameworks that promote innovation without compromising ethical standards. These regulations address issues such as data protection, accountability in AI decision-making, and the prevention of discriminatory practices. Legal professionals must stay abreast of these developments to ensure compliance and to advise clients effectively on AI-related matters.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence stands as a pivotal ally in the evolution of legal services, particularly within intellectual property consultancy. Its capacity to automate tasks and provide predictive insights not only enhances operational efficiency but also elevates the quality of client counsel. As AI continues to mature, its symbiotic relationship with legal professionals will undoubtedly redefine the landscape of legal practice.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

We are committed to integrating cutting-edge AI technologies to deliver unparalleled intellectual property services and  collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1 – How can AI be used in the legal field?

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that can be leveraged in the legal field to automate certain tasks, enhance data analysis, and optimize case management. The main applications include: • Automation of repetitive tasks: AI can generate contracts, analyze clauses, and verify document compliance. • Legal research: AI-powered search engines accelerate the identification of case law precedents and applicable legal texts. • Predictive analysis: Some AI systems can assess the likelihood of success in legal cases based on past court decisions. • Risk management and compliance: AI algorithms detect anomalies in financial documents or contracts, helping companies comply with regulations.

2 – What is the relationship between law and artificial intelligence?

The relationship between law and AI is twofold: • AI applied to law: AI optimizes the work of legal professionals by automating complex tasks, facilitating access to legal information, and improving decision-making. • The regulation of AI: The rise of artificial intelligence presents legal challenges concerning data protection, algorithmic liability, ethics, and regulatory frameworks. Legislators must establish legal safeguards to prevent bias, ensure transparency, and protect individual rights.

3 – Can AI replace lawyers?

AI cannot replace lawyers, but it can significantly enhance their work by providing decision-support tools and automating time-consuming tasks. Lawyers bring indispensable expertise in legal interpretation, litigation strategy, and negotiation. AI lacks the judgment, creativity, and empathy required to defend a client in complex situations. It remains a highly effective assistant but not a substitute for legal professionals.

4 – How do consulting firms use AI?

Intellectual property and legal consulting firms use AI in several ways: • Brand monitoring and protection: AI helps detect fraudulent use of trademarks on the internet, social media, and e-commerce platforms. • Management and analysis of trademark and patent portfolios: AI algorithms can identify protection opportunities, detect potential conflicts, and propose tailored strategies. • Regulatory compliance audits: AI simplifies contract and legal text analysis to ensure compliance with current regulations. • Automation of document drafting: AI-powered tools generate contracts, legal clauses, and personalized analyses based on clients' needs. In summary, AI does not replace legal expertise but serves as an efficiency and precision tool that transforms legal practice and optimizes risk management.

Read More

AI and Data privacy

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and data privacy law has introduced complex challenges and opportunities for businesses and regulators alike. The exponential growth of AI-powered systems, particularly those reliant on personal data, necessitates a balanced approach to innovation and compliance. This article explores how the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) addresses the complex legal issues raised by AI technologies, including accountability, data minimization, and lawful bases for processing, while highlighting recent case law and enforcement actions.

I – The legal foundations: AI and GDPR compliance

A – AI’s dependency on personal data

AI systems often require vast amounts of personal data to function effectively. From training large language models to deploying recommendation engines, personal data is indispensable. However, the GDPR imposes strict conditions on such processing, challenging AI developers to balance utility and privacy.

Key Issues Addressed by the GDPR:

  • Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency (Art. 5 GDPR: AI systems must be transparent in their data handling practices, ensuring individuals understand how their data is used.
  • Purpose limitation (Art. 5 GDPR) : AI developers must define specific purposes for data processing and refrain from repurposing data without further legal justification.
  • Data minimization (Art. 5 GDPR) : The principle mandates that only data necessary for the intended purpose is processed.

B – Lawful bases for AI data processing

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has clarified that legitimate interest may justify processing personal data in AI development, provided it passes a three-part test:

  1. Identification of the legitimate interest.
  2. Demonstration of necessity for processing.
  3. Balancing this interest against individuals’ rights​​.

II – Key challenges in applying GDPR to AI

  • Anonymization and Pseudonymization : The distinction between anonymized and pseudonymized data is critical in determining GDPR applicability. AI models trained on pseudonymized data remain subject to GDPR, whereas truly anonymized data falls outside its scope​.
  • Transparency in complex systems : AI systems, particularly deep learning models, are often criticized as “black boxes,” making it difficult to explain how decisions are made. The GDPR’s right to explanation (recital 71) adds pressure on AI developers to enhance transparency.
  • Cross-Border data transfers : AI systems relying on global data sources face scrutiny under GDPR’s strict data transfer rules. The recent Schrems II decision invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, compelling organizations to adopt alternative safeguards for lawful data transfers​​.

III – Enforcement and precedent: Lessons from case law

A – The OpenAI Case: Italy’s landmark fine

In December 2024, the Italian Data Protection Authority fined OpenAI €15 million for GDPR violations, including a lack of transparency, failure to verify user age, and insufficient safeguards for sensitive data. This case underscores the importance of robust compliance strategies in AI deployment​.

B – Meta platforms and data security breaches

The Irish Data Protection Commission’s €251 million fine against Meta highlighted the consequences of inadequate data breach notifications and poor system design​.

C – The European Commission’s Illegal Data Transfers

A 2025 ruling against the European Commission revealed unlawful data transfers to the US, emphasizing accountability even for public bodies​.

IV – Practical recommendations for AI developers and businesses

  • Implement privacy by design and default : integrating privacy safeguards during the AI system’s design phase ensures compliance with GDPR’s data protection by design principle ( 25 GDPR).
  • Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) : DPIAs are mandatory for high-risk AI systems processing personal data. These assessments help identify risks and mitigate potential non-compliance​.
  • Strengthen transparency mechanisms : AI developers must provide clear, accessible privacy notices and explain automated decision-making processes, empowering users to exercise their rights effectively.
  • Monitor regulatory developments : As the EU progresses with the AI Act, businesses must adapt to evolving legal landscapes to avoid penalties and maintain consumer trust.

V – Future Outlook: navigating AI’s legal landscape

The interplay between AI innovation and data protection laws will intensify as technologies evolve. The EU AI Act, set to harmonize regulations across member states, aims to create a comprehensive framework that addresses both risks and benefits of AI systems. Businesses that proactively align their operations with GDPR principles will not only mitigate legal risks but also gain a competitive edge in a privacy-conscious market.

Conclusion : Striking a balance

The relationship between AI and personal data protection exemplifies the tension between innovation and regulatory compliance. By embracing GDPR principles, businesses can harness AI’s transformative potential while respecting individual rights. This dual focus on efficiency and accountability will define the future of AI in an increasingly regulated world.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, our recognized expertise in intellectual property and new technologies is at your service to guide you through the intricate challenges posed by artificial intelligence and data protection.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys.

Join us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram 

FAQ

1 – What is Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a set of technologies that enable machines to mimic certain human cognitive abilities, such as learning, reasoning, and decision-making. AI relies on advanced algorithms, including machine learning and deep learning, to analyze data and perform complex tasks without human intervention.

2 – What is the link between Artificial Intelligence and personal data?

AI relies on processing large amounts of data, including personal data such as names, addresses, online behavior, and user preferences. These data help machine learning algorithms improve their accuracy and provide personalized services. However, their use raises legal and ethical concerns, particularly regarding compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the security of sensitive information.

3 – What are the six principles of data protection?

The GDPR, which regulates the collection and processing of personal data in the European Union, is based on six fundamental principles: 1. Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency – Data must be processed lawfully, transparently, and in a way that is understandable to users. 2. Purpose limitation – Data must be collected for specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes. 3. Data minimization – Only data that is strictly necessary for processing should be collected. 4. Accuracy – Data must be kept up to date and corrected in case of errors. 5. Storage limitation – Data should not be retained longer than necessary. 6. Integrity and confidentiality – Data must be protected against unauthorized access, loss, or destruction.

4 – How does AI process data?

AI analyzes data in several stages: • Collection: Information is gathered from various sources (websites, sensors, databases, social networks, etc.). • Cleaning and structuring: Data is filtered, corrected, and organized to avoid errors and biases. • Analysis and modeling: Algorithms extract trends, detect anomalies, or make predictions. • Decision-making: AI generates recommendations, automates processes, or takes actions based on its analysis.

5 – What does AI do with your personal information?

Artificial Intelligence uses personal data to: • Personalize services (targeted advertising, content recommendations, virtual assistants). • Optimize algorithm performance (improving chatbots, voice recognition, and facial recognition). • Automate certain decisions (credit scoring, fraud detection, medical diagnosis). • Analyze user behavior to enhance products and services. However, the collection and processing of these data must comply with the GDPR and ensure the confidentiality and protection of users' sensitive information.

Read More

Art Market and Trademarks: Navigating Intellectual Property in the Art World

The art market is a sector where intellectual property plays a key role. While copyright remains the primary legal tool for protecting artistic creations, trademark law has become an essential strategy for safeguarding the names, logos, and reputations of artists, galleries, and auction houses.

According to the 2023 annual report of the INPI, 90,874 trademark applications were filed in France that year, highlighting the growing importance of brand protection, including in the art sector.

The challenge is twofold: ensuring the protection of artists’ and galleries’ identities against fraudulent use and guaranteeing the authenticity of artworks. The unauthorized use of well-known artists’ names to sell counterfeit goods is a recurrent issue that threatens the market’s value.

The Role of Trademarks in the Art Market

Trademarks play an essential role in the valorization of artists, galleries, and auction houses. They protect brand identity and market reputation, ensuring recognition and exclusivity.

Trademarks and Art Galleries’ Business Names

Art galleries must register their names and visual identities as trademarks with the INPI in France or the EUIPO for a European trademark. This registration prevents identity theft, commercial parasitism, and disputes over exploitation rights.

Prestigious galleries such as Gagosian Gallery and David Zwirner have established their names as trademarks to secure international recognition and prevent fraudulent use.

Artists’ Trademarks and Personal Branding

Many contemporary artists, including Jeff Koons, Banksy, and Damien Hirst, have registered their names as trademarks to control the commercialization of their works and derivative products, such as posters, miniature sculptures, and NFTs.

A critical legal question arises upon an artist’s death: Who owns the trademarked name, and who can exploit their image commercially? Some artist estates, such as Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s, have attempted to trademark their names to maintain control over posthumous exploitation.

Counterfeiting and Trademark Misuse

The art market faces a growing counterfeiting issue, affecting both artworks and branding elements, such as gallery logos or famous artist names.

Some online platforms and secondary markets exploit gallery and artist names without authorization, selling fake or unauthorized reproductions. Fraudulent NFTs have become a major concern, prompting artists to register their digital signatures and names as trademarks.

Copyright vs. Trademarks: Which Protection for Artworks?

While copyright law primarily governs the protection of artistic works, trademark law can apply in specific cases.

Copyright Protection for Artistic Works

Under French law, copyright automatically protects any original work from its creation, as stated in Article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code.

Artists hold moral rights (which are inalienable) and economic rights (which can be transferred). An art gallery must obtain explicit authorization to use or reproduce a copyrighted artwork.

Three-Dimensional Trademarks for Artistic Creations

Some artworks can be registered as three-dimensional trademarks if they are distinctive and not purely functional.

For example, Jeff Koons’ Balloon Dogs have been trademarked to prevent unauthorized reproductions.

Conflicts Between Copyright and Trademarks

Several conflicts arise between copyright and trademark law, including:

  • Can a gallery register an artwork as a trademark without the artist’s consent? No, unless the artist has transferred or licensed their rights. Unauthorized registration could be challenged as an infringement of the artist’s moral and economic rights.
  • Can a brand use an artist’s work without financial compensation? Generally no, unless it falls under an exception such as fair use or public domain. Unauthorized use could lead to legal action for copyright or trademark infringement.
  • When copyright expires (70 years after the artist’s death), can a trademark holder monopolize the work? A trademark cannot grant exclusive rights over a work in the public domain. However, a trademark on a name, logo, or distinctive element related to the artist may still provide some control over commercial use.

Notable Litigation and Case Law

Banksy vs. Full Colour Black, R 1246/2021-5 (2021)

Banksy registered several of his works as trademarks with the EUIPO. However, the company Full Colour Black contested these filings, arguing that Banksy was not using the trademarks for commercial purposes. The EUIPO annulled several of his trademarks, considering his filings an abuse of the system.

Jeff Koons and Copyright Infringement, 960 F.2d 301 (1992)

Jeff Koons has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly copying other artists’ works under the pretense of “transformation.” These cases highlight the tension between artistic appropriation and intellectual property rights.

Christo and Jeanne-Claude: Posthumous Protection

After the deaths of Christo and Jeanne-Claude, their heirs attempted to register their names and works as trademarks to control their commercial exploitation.

NFTs and Emerging Intellectual Property Issues

With the rise of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), trademark protection has taken on a new dimension.

  • Artists register their names and digital signatures as trademarks to prevent fake NFTs.
  • Galleries trademark certification systems to authenticate digital works and avoid identity fraud.
  • Platforms such as OpenSea and Rarible face legal challenges regarding unauthorized NFT sales.

Recommendations for Artists and Galleries

  • Register trademarks to protect artist names and gallery branding.
  • Ensure legal compliance before exhibiting or selling any artwork.
  • Monitor counterfeiting and unauthorized use of artist names and trademarks.
  • Utilize digital tools (blockchain, NFTs) to guarantee authenticity and traceability.

The intersection of art and trademarks presents both opportunities and challenges. While copyright remains the primary protection for artworks, trademark law is becoming increasingly strategic for securing artist and gallery identities.

With the rise of NFTs and digital art, intellectual property strategies must evolve to protect names and artworks from unauthorized exploitation.

Dreyfus Law Firm provides expertise in intellectual property protection for artists and galleries, working with a global network of specialized trademark attorneys.

 

FAQ

1. What is the relationship between art and trademarks?

Art and trademarks often intersect when artists incorporate branded elements into their works or when brands collaborate with artists to create unique products.

2. Can an artist use a trademarked logo in their artwork?

Using a trademarked logo without permission can lead to legal issues, as it may be considered trademark infringement.

3. What is fair use in the context of trademarks?

Fair use allows limited use of trademarked material without permission, typically for purposes like criticism or commentary. However, its application is limited in trademark law.

4. How can artists protect their intellectual property?

Artists can protect their work by registering copyrights, monitoring for unauthorized use, and taking legal action when necessary.

5. What are some examples of successful artist-brand collaborations?

Collaborations like those between Takashi Murakami and Louis Vuitton showcase successful partnerships that blend art and commerce.

Read More

Dreyfus and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Europe: An Analysis

Since its inception, Dreyfus has established itself as a leader in the management of intellectual property rights (IPR) on a European scale. Faced with the rise of global trade and the growing challenges posed by counterfeiting, the company provides invaluable support to organizations of all sizes to protect and enhance their intangible assets. This article highlights recent trends in the enforcement of IPR in the European Union (EU), drawing on major jurisprudence to illustrate current challenges and solutions.

An Overview of the Fight Against Counterfeiting in Europe

The year 2023 marked a significant milestone in the EU’s efforts to combat counterfeiting. Over 152 million counterfeit items were intercepted, with an estimated value of approximately 3.4 billion euros. This represents a 77% increase compared to the previous year, highlighting the growing effectiveness of surveillance and enforcement measures, thanks to international cooperation and technological advancements.

Most Affected Product Categories

Products such as “Games,” “Toys,” and “Recorded CDs/DVDs” dominate the seizures in terms of volume. However, the rise in violations involving “packaging materials” and “labels” reveals a new trend where counterfeiters use neutral components to evade customs controls. This strategy was addressed in Coty Germany GmbH v. Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-567/18, CJUE, 2020), where the Court clarified the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms. Essentially, the company is not liable for trademark infringement unless it actively participates in offering or marketing counterfeit products.

Performance by Member States

Ten European countries stand out for their major contributions to seizures, with Italy taking the lead (74% of intercepted items). France, Romania, and Spain are also key players in these enforcement operations. The importance of cross-border cooperation was underscored in Top Logistics BV v. Bacardi & Company Ltd (C-379/14, CJUE, 2015), which clarified the conditions for seizing goods in transit within the EU

Transportation and Evasion Strategies

Counterfeiters exploit various transportation methods to move their products. Postal shipments account for 37% of cases, while maritime transport dominates in terms of volume, with containers holding thousands of items. This diversity underscores the need to adapt control methods to each logistical channel.

Trademarks at the Heart of Infringements

Trademarks are the most targeted rights, accounting for 84% of recorded infringements in 2023. Copyright violations (7%) and designs (3%) also raise concerns, particularly for high-profile brands.

Dreyfus: A Strategic Partner for IPR Protection

As an intellectual property specialist, Dreyfus offers key services to counter infringements:

  1. Proactive Monitoring: The company uses advanced technologies to detect potential violations in physical and online markets.
  2. Legal Management: With solid legal expertise, Dreyfus assists clients in IPR-related disputes by collaborating with national and international authorities.
  3. Training and Awareness: By educating companies on the best prevention strategies, Dreyfus helps strengthen their internal capabilities.
  4. Institutional Partnerships: The company works closely with organizations such as the EUIPO to enhance protection measures in the European market.

Future Challenges and Perspectives

Several challenges remain:

  • Local Assembly: Counterfeiters use innovative strategies to assemble unbranded products in Europe, avoiding border seizures. In Nintendo v. BigBen Interactive (CJUE, C-25/16, 2018), the CJUE confirmed that intellectual property rights apply even when production stages are outsourced.
  • E-commerce: The speed of online transactions complicates the detection and tracking of infringements. This issue was highlighted in Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08, CJUE, 2010), which clarified the responsibilities of advertising platforms.
  • Regional Disparities: Differences in resources and priorities among member states hinder a coordinated response. The case Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Aldi Süd (TGI Paris, 2019) illustrates the impact of variable standards on protecting geographical indications within the EU.

To address these challenges, Dreyfus advocates for a comprehensive approach based on technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data, as well as better harmonization of procedures across the European Union.

Conclusion

The year 2023 represents a turning point in the fight against counterfeiting in Europe. Thanks to a combination of concerted efforts, technological innovations, and landmark judicial decisions, the EU is better equipped to tackle these threats. Dreyfus positions itself as a key player in supporting companies in this essential battle, contributing to the protection of intangible assets and the preservation of European competitiveness. With concerted efforts and innovative solutions, it is possible to significantly reduce the impact of counterfeiting on the economy and society.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

DeepSeek: The Emergence of China’s New AI Powerhouse

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), the emergence of new players can significantly disrupt existing paradigms. One such entrant is DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup that has recently garnered attention for its innovative approaches and competitive performance metrics. As enterprises consider integrating DeepSeek into their operations, it is imperative to understand not only its capabilities but also the legal, data privacy, and intellectual property implications associated with its use.

I – Overview of DeepSeek

A – Development and Release

DeepSeek, officially known as Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd., unveiled its open-source R1 model on January 27, 2025. This release sent ripples through the U.S. technology sector, particularly as reports highlighted that DeepSeek achieved performance levels comparable to established models like OpenAI’s o1-mini, but at approximately 5% of the development cost. This development challenges the prevailing notion that advancing large language models (LLMs) necessitates substantial capital and computational resources.

B – Key Features and Performance

DeepSeek’s R1 model is designed to handle a variety of complex tasks with notable efficiency. Its open-source nature allows users to download and run the model locally, eliminating the need for data storage on cloud platforms controlled by DeepSeek. This flexibility has attracted a surge of AI developers exploring DeepSeek as a viable alternative to existing models.

II – Legal Considerations for Enterprise Users

A – Data Ownership and Usage Rights

Enterprises must exercise caution when utilizing DeepSeek’s online platforms, such as its iOS, Android, or web chatbot interfaces. DeepSeek’s privacy policy grants the company broad rights to exploit user data collected through prompts or from user devices. This includes monitoring interactions, analyzing usage patterns, and using data to train and improve their technology. Additionally, DeepSeek reserves the right to share collected information with advertising and analytics partners, as well as third parties in connection with corporate transactions.

B – Compliance with International Trade Laws

The storage of all personal data on servers located in China introduces complexities concerning international trade laws that restrict or prohibit data transfers to certain foreign countries, including China. Companies should thoroughly review DeepSeek’s privacy terms to ensure compliance with their internal data security policies and external commitments to customers.

III – Data Privacy and Security Concerns

A – Data Storage and Transfer

DeepSeek’s practice of storing user data on servers within the People’s Republic of China (PRC) raises significant data privacy concerns. The PRC’s regulatory environment differs markedly from frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States. Users should be aware that their data may be subject to local laws that permit government access without the stringent safeguards found in other jurisdictions.

B – Potential Risks for Enterprises

For enterprises handling sensitive or proprietary information, using DeepSeek’s online platforms could pose confidentiality risks. The broad data usage rights claimed by DeepSeek may conflict with an organization’s obligations to protect client data or trade secrets. It is crucial for companies to assess these risks and consider whether running a local instance of DeepSeek’s model, thereby retaining full control over their data, is a more suitable option.

IV – Intellectual Property Challenges

A – Allegations of Unauthorized Use

Recent reports indicate that OpenAI has accused DeepSeek of unlawfully using its AI models, raising significant legal and ethical concerns. OpenAI asserts that there is evidence suggesting DeepSeek illicitly utilized its models to enhance its own AI systems.

B – Implications for AI Development

These allegations, if substantiated, could have profound implications for the AI industry, particularly concerning the protection of intellectual property and the ethical development of AI technologies. Enterprises should monitor these developments closely, as they may impact the legal landscape surrounding AI tool usage and development.

V – DeepSeek AI: Privacy Concerns and Regulatory Actions in Europe

Unlike other AI models, DeepSeek is open-source and entirely free. However, its use raises significant concerns regarding data privacy, particularly in terms of compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

European data protection authorities have expressed concerns about DeepSeek’s data collection and processing practices. For instance, the Luxembourg National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) has warned about the risks associated with using DeepSeek, emphasizing that user input may be recorded, transferred, stored, or analyzed without a clear data protection framework. The absence of a DeepSeek representative in the European Union complicates GDPR enforcement and makes it difficult for EU citizens to exercise their data rights.

In response, some regulatory authorities have taken concrete action. The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante) ordered the blocking of the DeepSeek application in Italy after the company failed to provide requested information regarding its privacy policy and data processing practices.

These measures highlight the challenges posed by the rapid emergence of AI models like DeepSeek, particularly regarding compliance with European data protection regulations. European authorities continue to monitor these developments closely to ensure user data security and privacy.

Conclusion

DeepSeek represents a significant advancement in the AI field, offering promising capabilities that could benefit various enterprise applications. However, organizations must carefully weigh these advantages against the potential legal, data privacy, and intellectual property risks associated with its use. Conducting thorough due diligence and consulting with legal experts in data protection and intellectual property law is essential before integrating DeepSeek into business operations.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions in the evolving field of AI and copyright.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1 – What is the link between artificial intelligence and personal data?

Artificial intelligence (AI) relies on processing and analyzing large datasets to learn, identify patterns, and make predictions. When AI processes information that can identify an individual (such as names, addresses, browsing history, biometric data, etc.), this data is considered personal and is subject to strict regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe.

2 – How does artificial intelligence process data?

AI systems process data through machine learning and deep learning algorithms. These models are trained on large amounts of data to recognize patterns and improve predictions. The processing includes: • Collecting and storing data • Cleaning and structuring information • Analyzing trends and modeling predictions • Making automated decisions based on the analysis To comply with regulations, data must be used transparently, minimized, and secured.

3 – What is the legal framework for AI?

AI is regulated by multiple legal frameworks at both national and international levels. In Europe, it is primarily governed by: • The GDPR, which imposes strict obligations on the collection, processing, and storage of personal data. • The proposed EU AI Act, which aims to classify AI systems based on their risk level and impose specific obligations on developers and users. • Other sector-specific regulations, such as those related to consumer protection, cybersecurity, and liability for errors or damages caused by AI.

4 – Does AI collect your personal information?

AI can process personal information if it is designed to analyze user data (e.g., facial recognition, personalized recommendations, virtual assistants). However, companies and organizations using AI technologies must comply with principles of transparency, data minimization, and user consent. Responsible AI systems should integrate data protection mechanisms such as anonymization, encryption, and access control to prevent misuse or non-compliant processing.

5 – Does the GDPR apply to AI?

Yes, the GDPR applies to any AI system that processes personal data, regardless of the technology used. Key obligations include: • Obtaining explicit user consent for data collection and usage. • Complying with the principle of data minimization, meaning only collecting data that is strictly necessary. • Implementing security measures to protect data processed by AI. • Ensuring the right to explanation, allowing individuals to obtain information about automated decision-making processes. • Granting individuals the right to erasure of their personal data upon request. Any organization using AI must ensure that its systems comply with GDPR requirements and other applicable regulations.

Read More

How to secure Intellectual Property Rights in public tenders and procurement

Winning public tenders can open substantial opportunities for businesses. However, participating in these processes often involves navigating intricate intellectual property issues, particularly when delivering innovative solutions or creative services. This article provides a comprehensive guide to securing your intellectual property rights in public tenders, ensuring you retain control over your creations while meeting procurement requirements.

 Understanding the intersection of IP and public procurement

Why intellectual property clauses are important in public contracts ? Public contracts frequently involve the creation of intellectual works such as software, designs, or research. However, without well-drafted clauses, you risk losing rights to your creations. The inclusion of clear IP provisions ensures:

  • Defined ownership: Establishes whether rights remain with the contractor or transfer to the public entity.
  • Scope of use: Determines how the procuring entity may use the delivered results.
  • Fair compensation: Reflects the value of IP rights in contract pricing.

IP in public procurement is governed by national laws and sector-specific agreements. In France, the Intellectual property Code and the public procurement code define default rules for IP ownership and transfer in public contracts. Internationally, EU directives provide harmonized principles for public procurement.

Key IP issues in public tenders

Ownership of results

The ownership of intellectual property created under public contracts varies depending on the type of deliverables and the procurement model:

  • Licenses vs. ownership transfer: Default rules under French law (CCAG-PI, CCAG-TIC) often provide the public entity with a license, while exclusive transfer requires explicit contractual provisions.
  • Existing works: Contractors typically retain rights to pre-existing works incorporated into deliverables, but must grant the public entity a license for operational needs.

Use of Pre-existing IP

Clearly identify pre-existing IP or know-how and establish its legal treatment:

  • Declare all pre-existing elements upfront.
  • Use non-exclusive licenses to prevent the loss of proprietary rights.

Confidentiality and protection of know-how

Protecting trade secrets and know-how is critical:

  • Non-disclosure agreements: Ensure these are in place before tender submission.
  • Restricted access clauses: Limit the use and dissemination of sensitive information shared during the tender process.

Compatibility with open data requirements

Public authorities often require results to be shared under open access frameworks. Define the boundaries for such usage, ensuring it aligns with your business model.

 Drafting effective IP clauses in tender proposals

Several steps for writing these clauses:

  1. Clearly define deliverables

The contract should specify the IP status of each deliverable:

  • Distinguish between bespoke developments and standardized solutions.
  • State whether deliverables include software, designs, or reports.
  1. Specify the scope of rights granted

Define the following:

  • Territorial scope: E.g., national, European, or global usage rights.
  • Duration: Temporary or perpetual rights.
  • Purpose: Limit rights to specific uses (e.g., internal use).
  1. Address modifications and derivative works

Explicitly regulate:

  • The procuring entity’s ability to modify or adapt the work.
  • Conditions for creating derivative works or sublicensing.
  1. Include compensation for IP

Ensure your tender pricing reflects the value of IP rights being transferred or licensed:

  • Itemize costs related to IP creation and licensing.
  • Incorporate royalties for extended or expanded use.

Navigating complex scenarios

Collaborative innovation

When collaborating with public entities, co-created IP may arise. To safeguard your rights:

  • Establish co-ownership agreements, detailing how rights are shared and exploited.
  • Define rules for filing patents or registering designs.

Litigation and disputes

If disputes arise:

  • Refer to arbitration clauses or administrative jurisdiction defined in the contract.
  • Use preambles and detailed IP clauses as evidence of intent.

Handling open-source deliverables

When contributing open-source solutions:

  • Verify licensing terms align with procurement requirements.
  • Prevent conflicts between proprietary and open-source components.

Conclusion 

First of all, consult legal and IP professionals, as Dreyfus Law Firm, during tender preparation to:

  • Draft robust IP clauses.
  • Identify potential risks.

Then, review your portfolio to:

  • Identify IP that may be affected by the contract.
  • Ensure readiness for compliance and negotiations.

Then, benchmark standard practices in your sector for IP management in public procurement.

Finally, many procurement frameworks allow for dialogue phases—use this to clarify and protect your IP interests.

Securing intellectual property rights in public tenders requires a proactive approach, balancing the demands of public authorities with your strategic interests. By defining clear contractual provisions, understanding applicable laws, and protecting your pre-existing assets, you can safeguard your IP and build lasting value from public contracts.

Dreyfus Law Firm has been assisting clients in securing and maximizing the value of their intellectual assets. With deep expertise in intellectual property and tailored services, we ensure optimal management of your rights in public tenders and procurement.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to protect your innovations while maximizing their potential.

Follow us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

 FAQ

1 – How to protect your intellectual property in a contract?

To protect your intellectual property in a contract, it is essential to include specific clauses detailing the rights and obligations of the parties. Key aspects to consider include:

  • Clearly defining the intellectual property covered (trademarks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, software, etc.).
  • Determining ownership of rights: specifying who owns the creations and innovations developed under the contract.
  • Regulating the use of rights: setting out the terms for assignment, licensing, or usage of the intellectual property.
  • Ensuring confidentiality: including a non-disclosure clause to prevent the leakage of sensitive information.
  • Providing enforcement mechanisms in case of infringement (penalties, damages, termination, etc.).

A well-drafted contract helps anticipate disputes and secure the company’s intangible assets.

2 – What is an intellectual property clause?

An intellectual property clause is a contractual provision that defines the rights and obligations of the parties concerning protected creations, inventions, or trade secrets. It may cover:

  • Ownership of rights: clarifying who holds the intellectual property created or used under the contract.
  • Usage conditions: outlining the terms for assignment, licensing, or exploitation of the rights.
  • Protection obligations: ensuring confidentiality and preventing any infringement of intellectual property rights.
  • Remedies in case of disputes: specifying penalties for infringement, breach of commitments, or unauthorized disclosure.

This clause is crucial in service agreements, collaboration contracts, employment contracts, and distribution agreements to avoid legal uncertainties.

3 – What is trade secret in intellectual property?

A trade secret in intellectual property refers to a set of confidential information, methods, or technical processes that have economic value. This can include:

  • Manufacturing formulas or industrial processes.
  • Specific commercial or marketing strategies.
  • Proprietary databases.
  • Software or algorithms that are not patented.

Trade secrets are indirectly protected through business confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) but do not enjoy exclusive rights like patents or trademarks.

4 – How to protect your trade secrets?

Trade secrets can be protected through several mechanisms, including:

  • Confidentiality agreements: signing NDAs with employees, partners, and service providers.
  • Information access restrictions: limiting access to trade secrets to authorized personnel only.
  • Establishing proof of ownership: documenting and dating key processes (e.g., through notarized records or deposits with specialized organizations).
  • Employment or collaboration contracts: including confidentiality and non-compete clauses to prevent knowledge leakage.
  • Technical security measures: securing databases, software, and sensitive documents with encryption and restricted access.

These precautions ensure the exclusivity of trade secrets and prevent unauthorized use by third parties.

 

Read More

The case of the domain name : Afnic rules in favor of the Syndicat des Vins

Afnic (Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération), which is responsible for managing domain names ending in .fr, has issued its decision in the dispute between the Syndicat des Vins Côtes de Provence and the company AOC ET COMPANIES. What is at stake? The domain name <cotesdeprovence.fr>, registered since 2004 by AOC ET COMPANIES. The Syndicat des Vins, the organization that protects and manages the “Côtes de Provence” appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC), contested this ownership, arguing that its registration and use infringed the rights guaranteed by law on this renowned wine appellation.

After analyzing the arguments of both parties, Afnic ruled in favor of the Syndicate and ordered the transfer of the domain name to its benefit. A look back at a landmark decision that illustrates the importance of protecting geographical indications on the Internet.

A domain name at the heart of the battle

The dispute concerned the website <cotesdeprovence.fr>, registered on May 17, 2004 by the company AOC ET COMPANIES, which specializes in IT services and website creation. For almost 20 years, this domain name was not used. But in March 2024, the Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate took steps to recover this domain, believing that it constituted misappropriation of a protected AOC.

According to the Syndicate, the “Côtes de Provence” AOC, recognized since 1977 and enjoying a strong reputation in France and internationally, had to be protected against any unauthorized commercial or private use. In particular, it invoked Article L. 45-2 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code, which allows a domain name to be challenged in the event of infringement of rights protected by law, such as a geographical indication or trademark.

In April 2024, the Syndicate sent a formal notice to the Holder requesting the free transfer of the domain. In response, the latter refused, explaining that he was the legitimate owner and indicating that he was only willing to transfer it as part of a commercial transaction.

Faced with this refusal, the Syndicat referred the matter to Afnic via the PARL EXPERT procedure, an arbitration mechanism dedicated to disputes over .fr domain names.

The parties’ arguments

The Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate: an infringement of legally guaranteed rights

The Syndicate argued that the registration and renewal of the domain name <cotesdeprovence.fr>:

  • Infringed upon the “Côtes de Provence” AOC, protected by the Rural Code and Maritime Fisheries (article L. 643-1).
  • Were likely to weaken or divert the reputation of this AOC by preventing the legitimate rights holders from using the domain name.
  • Were the result of a registration in bad faith, since the holder had no connection with the wine sector and had never used it to promote an activity related to the appellation.
  • Were motivated by a purely speculative interest, as the Holder had offered to sell the domain for financial compensation.

The Holder, AOC ET COMPANIES: a desire to preserve its rights

For its part, the company AOC ET COMPANIES rejected these accusations, stating that:

  • It had been the legitimate owner of the domain since 2004, having acquired it entirely legally according to the “first come, first served” rule applied by Afnic.
  • The acronym “AOC” in its trade name did not refer to “Appellations d’Origine Contrôlée” (Controlled Designations of Origin), but to its slogan “[Surname] Optimizes your Trade and Etc.”
  • The domain name did not infringe the rights of the Syndicate, as it had never been used to promote wines or a competing product.
  • The sale of the domain was not a sign of bad faith, but a direct consequence of the Syndicate’s efforts to claim its transfer.

The Expert’s analysis: abusive private use of the domain name

The Expert appointed by Afnic examined the arguments and evidence of both parties. Several factors weighed in favor of the Syndicate:

  • The protected nature of the “Côtes de Provence” AOC: the Expert recognized that this appellation, governed by an official decree of 1977, benefited from legal protection and could not be used without justification.
  • The perfect identity between the domain name and the AOC: the domain <cotesdeprovence.fr> completely reflected the appellation, which risked creating confusion.
  • The absence of legitimate exploitation: the Holder had never used the domain for 20 years and had no connection with the world of wine.
  • The sale of the estate: the fact of having offered the domain name for sale and of promoting it on a dedicated site was perceived as an attempt at speculation, which constitutes evidence of bad faith according to article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE.

Thus, the Expert considered that the registration and use of the domain infringed the rights guaranteed by law and that it should be transferred to the Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate.

 

A decision in favor of the protection of geographical indications

On September 10, 2024, Afnic confirmed the Expert’s decision and ordered the transfer of the domain name <cotesdeprovence.fr> to the Syndicat des Vins Côtes de Provence.

The decision was enforced after a period of 15 days, during which time the Holder may still initiate legal proceedings if they so wish.

This case illustrates the importance of protecting geographical indications on the Internet. Domain names, as strategic communication and marketing tools, cannot be monopolized for speculative purposes when they include designations protected by law.

Nevertheless, this decision raises questions, because it calls into question the ownership of a domain name registered for 20 years. Although foreclosure does not apply in this case, it creates real legal uncertainty for domain name holders. In this case, this situation can be explained by the lack of use of the domain name during this entire period. In general, establishing a system of limitation for this type of procedure would be appropriate in order to guarantee legal certainty.

 

Dreyfus Law Firm, with its expertise in intellectual property and domain name protection, assists its clients in defending their rights against the risks of cybersquatting and infringement of their IP rights. We act in UDRP disputes, analyzing each case from the perspective of trademark law and regulations specific to protected geographical indications (PGI) and controlled designation of origin (CDO). Thanks to our experience in the strategic management of domain name portfolios, we implement tailored solutions to anticipate, monitor and defend the digital assets of our clients, whether they are producers, professional associations or companies in the wine and food industry.

FAQ

  1. Can a registered designation of origin (AOC) be protected on the Internet?

Yes. An AOC is a distinctive sign protected by law. The registration of a domain name containing an AOC without legitimate justification may be contested by the organization in charge of its defense.

  1. What can be done if a domain name contains an AOC without authorization?

The AOC defense organization may take legal action or resort to extrajudicial procedures such as PARL EXPERT with Afnic for .fr domain names, or UDRP for international extensions (.com, .org, etc.).

  1. How does Afnic’s PARL EXPERT procedure work?

PARL EXPERT is a fast, out-of-court procedure for resolving disputes relating to .fr domain names. An expert examines the arguments of the parties and can decide on the transfer or deletion of the disputed domain name.

  1. Is it possible to register a domain name for the sole purpose of reselling it?

No. Speculative registration of a domain name, without the intention of exploiting it but with the aim of reselling it at a high price, may be considered as use in bad faith and give rise to a dispute.

  1. Can a domain name corresponding to an AOC be used by a company outside the sector?

The use of a domain name corresponding to an AOC by a company that has no connection with the sector concerned may be contested if it risks weakening or misappropriating the reputation of the appellation.

  1. What criteria can be used to prove bad faith in the registration of a domain name?

Bad faith can be established if the domain holder:

  • Has no legitimate interest in registering it,
  • Seeks to profit from the reputation of an AOC or a trademark,
  • Offers the domain for sale after being contacted by a right holder,
  • Does not actively exploit it for a long period of time.
  1. Can an AOC be considered as public property on the Internet?

No. AOCs are protected by legislation and cannot be freely used by third parties without authorization. They benefit from a specific legal framework that prevents their abusive appropriation.

  1. Can an organization that defends an AOC recover a domain name without financial compensation?

Yes. If the organization demonstrates that the registration of the domain name infringes the AOC, Afnic or a competent authority may order its transfer without any obligation to compensate the original holder.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Follow us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

UDRP: The Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate loses its fight for the domain name

The present proceedings – Syndicat des Vins Côtes de Provence v. Pascal Leemann-Pluot – Case No. D2024-5223 – concern the domain name <cotesdeprovence.com>, registered on January 29, 2007 by the Respondent, an individual domiciled in the United States. The Complainant, Syndicat des Vins Côtes de Provence, considered that this domain name infringed its rights, in particular its French trademarks and its Côtes de Provence appellation protected by French and European regulations.

Background and Position of the Complainant

  • Appellation and missions of the Syndicate

The Complainant is a trade association created in 1933 to defend and promote the “Côtes de Provence” appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC), which designates a geographical wine-growing area covering several communes in the Provence region. It emphasizes its high profile, its substantial production (more than 130 million bottles in 2022), as well as its trademarks registered in France.

  • Trademarks claimed

The Complainant relies mainly on two French trademarks:

  1. A purely figurative trademark (no. 1432164) representing a bottle of wine (without any relevant textual element).
  2. A semi-figurative trademark (no. 3753570) including the words “SYNDICAT DES VINS COTES DE PROVENCE”.
  3. He also emphasizes that he is the holder of several domain names containing the expression “cotesdeprovence”, such as <cotesdeprovence.fr>, <odg-cotesdeprovence.fr> or <odg-cotesdeprovence.com>.
  • Arguments about similarity and confusion

The Complainant considers that the domain name <cotesdeprovence.com> reproduces identically the essential element of its signs, namely “COTES DE PROVENCE”. Despite the semi-figurative form of its trademark, it considers that the dominant verbal element is “Côtes de Provence” and that there is therefore a likelihood of confusion.

  • Rights and legitimate interests

The Complainant claims that the Defendant has not been authorized to use the appellation or to register a domain name corresponding to its trademarks or its AOC/PDO. It adds that the use of the site associated with the domain name (pages of pay-per-click advertising links related to the sale or delivery of wine) does not constitute legitimate or bona fide use.

  • Registration and use in bad faith

The Complainant maintains that the expression “Côtes de Provence” enjoys a strong reputation and that it is unlikely that the Defendant was unaware of the existence of the AOC and related rights. The association of the domain name with a site of sponsored links targeting the wine estate would demonstrate a desire to profit from the reputation of the appellation and to create confusion among Internet users, which would characterize bad faith.

Defendant’s position

The Respondent did not participate in the proceedings and did not submit any arguments in response. The only information available is that provided by the Complainant and the Center’s findings, in particular that the site linked to the domain name displayed PPC links relating to wine and that no active use by the Respondent (such as its own commercial site) has been proven.

Panel Analysis

  1. a) Similarity between the domain name and the trademarks
  • The Panel notes that the Complainant’s entirely figurative trademark (no. 1432164) does not include a word element, and therefore cannot be compared textually to the domain name <cotesdeprovence.com>.
  • The second trademark (no. 3753570), registered in 2010 (i.e. after the registration of the domain name in 2007), includes the element “SYNDICAT DES VINS COTES DE PROVENCE”, but is not strictly equivalent to “COTES DE PROVENCE” alone. The Panel recognizes that the Complainant considers it to include a dominant element “Côtes de Provence”, but notes the absence of concrete evidence to demonstrate that this verbal segment would be protected in isolation or considered the pre-eminent part of the trademark.
  1. b) Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent

In view of the Panel’s conclusion on bad faith (see below), it was not considered necessary to make a final decision on the question of legitimate rights or interests. In accordance with the UDRP procedure, failure to prove bad faith of registration and use is sufficient to reject the complaint, without it being mandatory to analyze the second element.

  1. c) Registration and use in bad faith
  • Priority of the trademark over the domain name

The semi-figurative trademark mentioning “Côtes de Provence” dates from 2010, while the domain name was registered in 2007, which makes it unlikely that there was an initial intention to specifically target the Complainant’s trademark.

  • Reputation of the Complainant vs. reputation of the wine region

Even if the appellation “Côtes de Provence” is recognized in the wine sector, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s argument does not prove that the Respondent was aware of the syndicate or its trademarks in order to exploit their reputation. It is plausible that the Defendant wanted to capitalize on the interest in the region or the “Côtes de Provence” wine, without necessarily targeting the owner of the trademarks or the organization managing the AOC.

  • Advertising links (pay-per-click)

The advertising content of the site is focused on the theme of wine, but does not in itself demonstrate the intention to exploit the Complainant’s trademark. To characterize bad faith, it would have been necessary to establish that the Defendant was aware of the Syndicate and its rights or that it was specifically targeting the trademark.

  • Panel’s conclusion

Not being able to find any evidence proving a deliberate intention to appropriate the reputation of the Syndicate or its brands, and noting moreover that the registration predates the semi-figurative trademark, the Panel finds that the Complainant does not fulfill the condition of bad faith within the meaning of the UDRP Policy.

Decision

In the absence of sufficient evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name, the complaint is rejected. The domain name <cotesdeprovence.com> therefore remains in the possession of the Respondent.

Conclusion

The Panel, applying the rules of the UDRP, concludes that the Complainant does not meet the requirement to establish bad faith registration and use by the Respondent. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

The UDRP aims to resolve conflicts between trademarks and domain names, not between geographical indications and domain names. In this case, in the absence of a similar trademark and proof of bad faith on the part of the domain name holder, the outcome of this decision is in accordance with the UDRP rules.

This decision highlights the importance of owning a trademark to effectively defend one’s interests when faced with the registration of a domain name.

The Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate has also acted, this time successfully, via the French administrative procedure PARL-EXPERT to recover the same domain name in <.fr>: add link.

Dreyfus Law Firm, with its expertise in intellectual property and domain name protection, assists its clients in defending their rights against the risks of cybersquatting and infringement of their IP rights. We act in UDRP disputes, analyzing each case from the perspective of trademark law and regulations specific to protected geographical indications (PGI) and controlled designation of origin (CDO). Thanks to our experience in the strategic management of domain name portfolios, we implement tailored solutions to anticipate, monitor and defend the digital assets of our clients, whether they are producers, professional associations or companies in the wine and food industry.

 

FAQ

 

  1. What is the UDRP procedure and when is it applicable?

The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) procedure is a mechanism set up by ICANN to resolve domain name disputes. It applies when the complainant considers that a domain name is identical or similar to a trademark that they hold, that the defendant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain and that they have registered and are using the domain in bad faith.

  1. Can a domain name containing a protected designation of origin (PDO) be recovered?

The protection of designations of origin is governed by specific regulations (French and European, for example). However, the UDRP generally only recognizes rights related to trademarks. It may therefore be more difficult to claim a domain name on this basis alone. Legal action based on PDO or unfair competition laws could be an alternative.

  1. Can a semi-figurative trademark be sufficient to obtain a domain name via the UDRP?

It all depends on the textual elements of the trademark. If the domain name in question only includes part of a semi-figurative trademark, the chances of success may be reduced, especially if this part is not clearly identified as dominant.

  1. Can a domain name registered before a trademark be recovered under the UDRP?

As a general rule, if the domain name was registered before the trademark claimed by the complainant, it is difficult to prove bad faith. However, there are some exceptions, particularly if the defendant was already aware of the trademark and intended to exploit it abusively.

  1. Is the display of advertising links (pay-per-click) on a site proof of bad faith?

Not necessarily. Although some cases of cybersquatting are characterized by the exploitation of a domain name for sponsored links, bad faith must be demonstrated. If the domain contains a generic or geographical term and the defendant does not specifically target a trademark, it may be difficult to prove abusive use.

  1. Can a right to a designation of origin be invoked if it is well known?

The reputation of an appellation of origin can be a factor, but it does not automatically confer a right under the UDRP. As the procedure is trademark-oriented, it is often preferable to resort to actions based on the specific regulations of appellations or on the law of unfair competition.

  1. What can be done if a UDRP complaint is rejected?

If a UDRP complaint is rejected, other options exist:

  • Legal action: depending on the country, it may be possible to invoke trademark law, appellation of origin law or unfair competition law.
  • Negotiation: an amicable approach can be attempted with the domain holder.
  • Monitoring and future actions: monitor possible new uses of the domain and intervene if misuse is detected.
  1. How can a name associated with a designation of origin be effectively protected?
  • Register a word mark including the designation as soon as possible.
  • Register the relevant domain names before a third party does.
  • Actively monitor domain registrations and online uses.
  • Act quickly in the event of a disputed registration, via a UDRP procedure or legal action. 

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property. 

Follow us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More