News

The increasing reliance on digital platforms has reinforced the critical role of access to online identification data in enforcing rights. Yet, this access remains deeply constrained by a fragmented legal framework, often subordinating victims’ rights to the anonymity of wrongdoers. In practice, victims of civil wrongs are deprived of effective recourse, while only serious criminal offenses may justify lifting anonymity.

I – Legal mechanisms to access identification data

Civil investigative measures under article 145 CPC

Victims may request data disclosure under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure before initiating legal action. This allows a judge to order disclosure measures to preserve or establish evidence, including the identity of pseudonymous online users. However, such access is fundamentally restricted by Article L. 34-1 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE), which prohibits civil litigants from accessing connection data, such as IP addresses, outside the criminal sphere.

This limitation has de facto created a regime of civil impunity for online misconduct, even when the infringement is deliberate and documented, as in the case of identity theft or reputational harm.

Criminal measures and the threshold of serious crime

By contrast, the CPCE authorizes the retention and disclosure of identification data in the context of criminal proceedings. These include:

• Subscriber information,
• Account registration data,
• Payment-related information.

Yet access to connection logs (IP addresses and source ports) is conditional upon the existence of “serious criminal offenses,” as required by Article L. 34-1, II bis, 3° CPCE. This threshold creates interpretative uncertainties, as demonstrated by recent case law.

II – Typology of online anonymization strategies

Identifying offenders online involves varying degrees of complexity:

1. Use of real identity: Rare and easily traceable.
2. Pseudonym with real data: Requires platform cooperation.
3. Pseudonym with fake data: Necessitates IP address to cross-reference with ISP records.
4. Advanced anonymization (VPN, TOR): Identification becomes technically improbable without real-time surveillance or source port data.

The IP address is often the only viable path to traceability—yet it is precisely the element least accessible under civil jurisdiction.

III – Case law analysis: Meta vs. Telegram

In the case involving Meta (CA Paris, 10 Sept. 2024, n° 23/16504), the Court denied access to IP addresses based on the proportionality principle and the perceived minor gravity of the identity theft. Meta’s defense—claiming non-possession of certain data—further underscores the inadequacy of enforcement mechanisms, especially where platforms fail to collect or retain relevant information.

Conversely, in the Telegram case (TJ Paris, 12 Nov. 2024, n° 24/57625), the judge ordered disclosure of all relevant data, including IP addresses, in response to a blackmail attempt. The decision bypassed the gravity requirement, focusing instead on the necessity of the measure to halt ongoing criminal behavior.

These cases reveal a dangerous inconsistency in judicial interpretation, leading to legal unpredictability and selective access to justice.

IV – Legal uncertainty and the challenge of enforcement

While the LCEN (Law for Trust in the Digital Economy, Art. 6, V) imposes a mandatory data retention obligation on hosts and ISPs, the 2021 decree is interpreted by platforms like Meta as optional in nature. This legal ambiguity undermines enforcement and shifts the burden onto victims, who are forced to navigate Kafkaesque procedures.

Moreover, a victim cannot even obtain proof that their own stolen data is misused, as access to IP logs is categorically denied in most civil contexts.

Conclusion and strategic insights

Access to online identification data remains structurally unbalanced, favoring anonymity over redress, particularly for civil victims. The current framework, riddled with procedural thresholds and vague terminology, fails to uphold the fundamental right of access to justice. A legislative clarification is urgently needed, alongside a stricter enforcement of data collection duties by platforms.

Dreyfus Law Firm advises and represents clients in complex cross-border matters involving digital rights enforcement, online reputation, and intermediary liability.

Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus

FAQ

Genuine use of a European Union trademark (EUTM) is a fundamental condition for maintaining the rights granted by its registration. In its judgment of 5 March 2025 (Case T-118/24), the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) clarified the scope of this notion, as well as the EUIPO’s obligation to provide special motivation. This article outlines the legal framework and practical implications of the ruling for trademark holders and IP professionals.

Genuine use of an EU trademark : legal framework and key issues

The rights attached to an EU trademark (EUTM), governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, are conditional upon its use. If the trademark is not put to genuine use within five years of registration, it may be revoked (Art. 58(1)(a)).

Use is considered genuine when it is effective, actual, and consistent with market practices. It must go beyond merely token use and must not be designed solely to preserve the registration. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Sunrider/OHIM (C-416/04) confirmed that even limited use may qualify as genuine if it reflects the commercial reality of the relevant market.

Accepted forms of evidence include :

• Invoices and purchase orders
• Advertising materials
• Screenshots from websites and social media
• Documents showing the trademark affixed to products or packaging

The use must take place within the EU and relate to the goods or services actually registered.

The EUIPO’s obligation to provide a special motivation

Under Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the EUIPO must issue clear, complete and comprehensible justification for its decisions. This requirement serves two purposes :

• To enable the parties to understand and, if necessary, challenge the decision
• To allow the Union courts to exercise judicial review over its legality

A failure to provide proper reasoning may result in  the decision being overturned, especially where the Board of Appeal overlooks key arguments or fails to substantiate its conclusions based on the evidence submitted.

General Court Judgment of 5 March 2025 (T-118/24) : background and significance

In this case, revocation proceedings were initiated against an EUTM registered in Class 14 (jewellery). The EUIPO partially rejected the application, finding that genuine use had been established for certain goods. The applicant then appealed to the General Court, arguing :

• That the evidence submitted did not establish genuine use
• That the EUIPO failed to provide adequate reasoning

a) Evidence of use

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s assessment. Genuine use was demonstrated by :

• 112 invoices, including 64 for Class 14 products
• Screenshots of advertisements on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter
• A commercial presentation of the trademark on the owner’s website

Even though the trademark was not physically affixed to the products, these materials were sufficient to demonstrate a link between the mark and the commercialisation of the goods. The Court reaffirmed that the volume of sales must be assessed in context : low sales figures may still indicate genuine use where the products are expensive or niche.

b) Export-only use

Regarding sales outside the EU, the Court recalled the strict requirement of Article 18(1)(b) : the mark must appear on the products or packaging when used solely for export purposes.

In this case, however, most evidence related to use within the EU. As such, the EUIPO’s failure to assess the export-related requirement had no bearing on the outcome.

c) Alleged lack of reasoning

The applicant further argued that the EUIPO had failed to :

• Explain how the evidence established use within the EU despite being linked to exports
• Address the claim that the mark had only been used for retail services (Class 35)

The Court dismissed both arguments :

• The retail services argument had not been raised during the EUIPO proceedings and could not be invoked for the first time on appeal
• Any lack of reasoning on export-related evidence was immaterial, as genuine use within the EU had been amply demonstrated

Practical takeaways for trademark holders

This judgment underscores key compliance requirements for maintaining EUTM rights :

• Maintain detailed documentation : invoices, marketing materials, and digital records can collectively establish a pattern of genuine use
• Ensure EU relevance : use must be traceable to the internal market
• Tailor your evidentiary strategy to the market : in luxury or high-value sectors, a small number of sales may suffice if consistent with industry norms

The ruling also sends a clear message to the EUIPO : decisions must be reasoned with precision, particularly when assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

Conclusion

Judgment T-118/24 reinforces two core principles in EU trademark law : a demanding yet contextual interpretation of genuine use, and the requirement of special motivations.

For trademark owners, this is a reminder to anticipate non-use challenges by systematically gathering and preserving use-related evidence. For IP practitioners, the case highlights the strategic value of invoking a failure to state reasons, although such a flaw will only be decisive where it materially affects the outcome.

Key takeaway : To preserve their rights, EUTM owners must demonstrate genuine economic use within the EU. At the same time, all EUIPO decisions must be properly reasoned to ensure effective judicial protection.

Dreyfus & associés advises clients in the preparation of relevant evidence of use, as well as in managing proceedings before the EUIPO and European courts. With in-depth experience in trademark law, the firm provides strategic support at every stage to secure intellectual property rights and anticipate litigation risks.

Dreyfus & associés is partnered with a global network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property law.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ 

Co-ownership of patents or trademarks often arises in collaborative innovation, particularly among inventors, business partners, or startup co-founders. While common, this legal arrangement entails a number of significant legal and strategic complexities especially when one co-owner seeks to transfer their share without informing the other.

A recent ruling issued by the Paris Judicial Court on 7 February 2025 clarifies the obligations of co-owners in the context of IP right transfers. The decision reinforces the importance of legal formalism and notification procedures. This article analyses the practical and legal consequences of such transfers, along with strategic guidance for rights holders.

Legal framework for IP co-ownership

Patent co-ownership: transfer regulations

Article L. 613-29 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC) allows a patent co-owner to transfer their share at any time. However, other co-owners benefit from a statutory right of first refusal, exercisable within three months of receiving formal notification by means of a bailiff’s act.

This requirement is further reinforced by Article 815-14 of the French Civil Code, which obliges the transferring party to disclose essential information: the proposed sale price, terms, and identity of the prospective buyer.

Trademark co-ownership: legal constraints and duties

Although less strictly codified than patent co-ownership, trademark co-ownership is recognized under Article L. 712-1 IPC. In the absence of a prior agreement between co-owners, the unilateral sale of a share without notification or consent may be deemed wrongful particularly if it deprives the other co-owner of financial rights or commercial opportunities.

The “Ares Trailer” case (Paris Judicial Court, 7 February 2025)

Background and key facts

In case number RG 21/07225, the Paris Judicial Court adjudicated a dispute between two co-inventors of a trailer system, who jointly owned a patent, a design, and a trademark registered under the name “Ares Trailer.” One of the co-owners transferred all IP rights to a third-party company without notifying the other, and the assignment documents were later found to contain a forged signature.

Key takeaways from the decision

The Court declared the contested assignments null and void due to lack of consent, emphasizing that even a lawful transfer of a share requires prior notification of the other co-owner.

However, the acquiring company escaped liability due to its good faith, as recognised under the doctrine of appearance. The co-owner who executed the transfer was ordered to pay €17,500 in damages for moral and financial harm caused to the other co-owner.

Legal risks of unilateral transfers without notification

Failing to comply with co-ownership rules regarding notification exposes the transferring party to significant legal risk, including:

• Annulment of the transfer, especially where consent is lacking or the transaction is tainted by fraud;
• Civil liability for breaching co-ownership obligations;
• Loss of revenues or commercial opportunities for the other co-owner;
• Litigation that may be prolonged, costly, and publicly damaging.

While a good-faith purchaser may retain the rights acquired, the assignor remains liable for having disregarded their legal obligations.

Best practices for managing IP co-ownership

To ensure compliance and mitigate risk, we recommend that co-owners of patents or trademarks:

• Formally notify all co-owners of any proposed transfer or licensing arrangement;
• Draft a comprehensive co-ownership agreement specifying procedures for transfer, licensing, and dispute resolution;
• Conduct a full review of title history and rights transfers prior to acquiring an interest in co-owned IP;
• Seek legal counsel proactively when contemplating any transaction affecting shared rights.

Conclusion

The co-ownership of intellectual property rights requires careful legal governance. The failure to notify other co-owners prior to a transfer even a partial one can lead to nullity of the transaction and potential damages. The “Ares Trailer” case provides a compelling precedent that reinforces the necessity of transparency, legal precision, and proactive planning when managing co-owned IP assets.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

Definition of territorial exclusivity in franchise agreements

Territorial exclusivity is a commonly included provision in franchise agreements that grants a franchisee exclusive rights to operate within a defined geographic zone.

This exclusivity offers a significant commercial advantage, shielding franchisees from internal competition and enabling them to develop their customer base within a protected environment. It also ensures brand consistency and alignment with the franchisor’s strategic positioning.

The effectiveness of this clause depends on precise territorial delineation and strict compliance with contractual obligations by all parties to the agreement. 

Legal framework under french law

Pursuant to Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, any act causing harm to another gives rise to liability for damages. This principle applies fully within the context of franchise relationships.

French courts regularly hold that violating a territorial exclusivity clause constitutes an act of unfair competition, particularly when it encroaches on the contractual rights of another franchisee. For example, in a decision dated 13 March 2024 (Paris Court of Appeal, No. 23/17908), the court found that distributing advertising materials within an exclusive territory amounted to a manifestly unlawful disturbance and warranted an injunction.

Additionally, EU Regulation No. 330/2010 authorises franchisors to prohibit active sales in another franchisee’s exclusive zone, while expressly permitting passive sales (responses to unsolicited customer orders).

How to identify unfair competition between franchisees

Unfair competition between franchisees can take various forms, particularly when one engages in commercial or marketing activities within another’s protected territory.

The most frequent examples include:

• Sending promotional emails or distributing leaflets within the exclusive zone;
• Using local SEO techniques to target customers in another franchisee’s area;
• Launching geo-targeted advertising campaigns on social media platforms aimed at consumers outside one’s designated territory.

Importantly, unfair competition may be established even in the absence of intent; the breach of exclusivity and the resulting harm alone suffice.

Legal and commercial risks for the infringing franchisee

A franchisee who breaches a territorial exclusivity clause is exposed to substantial legal and reputational risks, including:

• Preliminary injunctions requiring immediate cessation of the infringing activity;
• Damages for proven financial loss suffered by the affected franchisee;
• Termination of the franchise agreement for material breach of contract;
• Harm to brand reputation, which may negatively impact the franchise network as a whole.

These risks underscore the critical importance of adhering to territorial boundaries established in the franchise agreement.

Preventive measures and practical recommendations

To avoid both intentional and unintentional breaches of territorial exclusivity, we recommend the following best practices:

• Define territorial boundaries with precision in all franchise agreements;
• Train franchisees and their teams on their legal obligations regarding territorial exclusivity;
• Monitor local and online marketing campaigns, especially those involving digital outreach or search engine optimisation;
• Implement early warning systems or internal mediation procedures to swiftly address potential disputes.

A proactive and preventive approach is essential to safeguarding the integrity and stability of the franchise network.

Conclusion

Territorial exclusivity is a fundamental pillar of franchise governance, intended to promote balanced market development and limit internal conflicts.

Its violation not only constitutes a contractual breach, but also a form of unfair competition with potentially serious legal and financial consequences.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

Since May 1, 2025, European Union design law has undergone a major reform. This legislative overhaul, introduced through Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823, brings a comprehensive modernization of the legal framework to better protect industrial designs in the digital age.
This article outlines the practical implications for businesses, designers, legal professionals, and consumers.

Redefinition of key concepts

1. Expanded definition of “design”

The notion of “design” now includes dynamic features, such as movements, animations, transitions, and visual effects. This extension ensures effective legal protection for animated digital content and user interface designs.

2. Broadened definition of “product”

A product no longer needs to be tangible. Software interfaces, virtual objects, digital environments, and visual identifiers are now eligible for protection. This opens the door for design recognition in immersive digital environments, including virtual and augmented reality.

3. EU-Wide terminological harmonisation

Registered Community Designs (RCDs) are now officially referred to as Registered EU Designs (REUDs). The Community Design Regulation (CDR) has been renamed the European Union Design Regulation (EUDR). This terminological alignment enhances the coherence of EU design law and affirms its unified nature.

Procedural developments in design filing

• Centralized filing at the EUIPO : All applications for EU designs must now be filed directly with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). National offices are no longer competent for EU design filings, thereby streamlining the registration process.
• Multiple designs in one application, across Locarno classes : The reform allows up to 50 designs per application, even when they belong to different Locarno classes. This measure is intended to reduce costs and administrative burden, particularly for companies with extensive design portfolios.
• Dynamic representations : Although videos, 3D models, and simulations are not yet permitted as representation formats, their future integration is explicitly foreseen. Designers are encouraged to anticipate this development and prepare compatible visual material accordingly.

Revision of the fee structure

Simplified application and publication fees

A single fee now covers both registration and publication. In multiple applications, each additional design incurs a supplementary fee of €125. This simplification enhances clarity and financial predictability for applicants.

Higher renewal fees

Renewal fees have been increased and now escalate over time based on the age of the registration :

• 1st renewal: €150
• 2nd renewal: €250
• 3rd renewal: €400
• 4th renewal: €700

It is advisable to anticipate renewals before upcoming fee hikes and to manage design portfolios strategically based on business priorities and product life cycles.

New rights and limitations

• Protection against unauthorized 3D printing : Right holders are now empowered to act against the illicit reproduction of their designs via 3D printing. The reform thus responds to the emergence of new technological threats by securing the physical appearance of products, even when digitally replicated.
• Introduction of a permanent repair clause : A permanent repair clause has been established, authorizing third parties to use components protected by a design solely for the purpose of restoring the original appearance of a complex product (such as a car).
  The aim is to balance exclusive rights with the freedom to repair, preventing abusive technical monopolies.
• Freedom of expression and permitted uses : The new framework explicitly introduces limitations to design rights based on freedom of expression, including use for parody, commentary, criticism, or satire. This ensures a more proportionate and socially balanced application of design rights.

Strategic implications for stakeholders

• For companies and designers : A strategic audit of existing design portfolios is strongly recommended. The reform offers new opportunities, especially for digital, animated, and virtual designs. In addition, the centralized EUIPO filing system represents a major efficiency gain in managing design protection at the EU level.
• For legal professionals and IP advisors : Legal practitioners must adapt their advisory services and litigation strategies to incorporate the new regulatory framework. Continuous training is necessary to interpret the updated definitions, limitations, and procedural requirements.
• For consumers :  The repair clause and new limitations facilitate access to spare parts, combat planned obsolescence, and promote a more sustainable consumption model. These adjustments reinforce the public interest dimension of design law.

Conclusion

The EU design law reform that took effect on May 1, 2025, marks a significant modernization of the European system. It introduces expanded protection, greater procedural flexibility, and alignment with digital realities. Stakeholders across sectors are strongly encouraged to proactively adapt their practices to secure their rights and capitalize on the opportunities offered by this new legal landscape.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram 

In today’s innovation-driven economy, where collaborative research and technical partnerships are increasingly common, the exchange of proprietary know-how has become both essential and legally sensitive. If not properly managed, the disclosure of confidential technical information can compromise patentability, lead to the forfeiture of intellectual property rights, or give rise to liability for the disclosing or receiving party. This article explores the legal risks associated with know-how disclosure in the patent context illustrated by recent case law and sets out practical safeguards to ensure such exchanges are secure and compliant.

Legal risks arising from know-how disclosure

When confidential disclosure leads to patent litigation

The disclosure of technical know-how, even in a collaborative setting, may give rise to complex legal claims if improperly managed. Risks include:

• Ownership claims by the original holder of the disclosed information;
• Breach of contract claims, especially in the presence of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA);
• Irretrievable loss of confidentiality, should the disclosed elements be publicly revealed through a patent application.

Failure to anticipate these risks can not only nullify competitive advantage but also result in judicial reassignment of the patent rights and financial liability.

Case study: Air Liquide (Paris Judicial Court, January 31, 2025)

In 2020, Futura Mechanical Design Project (FMDP) and its parent company F2M SAS were retained by Air Liquide to conduct a feasibility study on a liquid hydrogen pump. An NDA was signed, explicitly forbidding the recipient from using disclosed technical information to file any intellectual property rights.

Despite this, an affiliated company within the Air Liquide group filed a French patent and subsequently a PCT international application, the contents of which replicated confidential material from the commissioned study. FMDP and F2M subsequently brought a claim for ownership of the patent, arguing that their proprietary know-how and the outcomes of their technical study had been unlawfully appropriated and used without authorization.

The Paris Judicial Court found that:

• FMDP held the technical solution prior to the collaboration;
• The patent filing constituted a breach of the NDA;
• The General Terms and Conditions (GTCs) cited by Air Liquide, which purportedly transferred IP ownership, were neither agreed upon nor enforceable.

The Court:

• Ordered the transfer of the patent and its international extensions to FMDP and F2M SAS;
• Awarded €30,000 in damages;
• Rejected Air Liquide’s counterclaims as unfounded and untimely.

This case underscores the evidentiary value of prior ownership documentation, the contractual weight of confidentiality obligations, and the inadmissibility of relying on unaccepted boilerplate GTCs in matters of intellectual property.

Contractual confidentiality obligations and legal consequences

A well-drafted NDA is a critical safeguard in collaborative innovation. Standard confidentiality provisions generally prohibit:

• The use of disclosed information beyond the defined scope;
• The filing of any intellectual property rights (patent, utility model, etc.) derived from such disclosures.

Failure to comply may result in:

• Injunctions and court-ordered ownership reassignment of the IP in question;
• Monetary damages for loss and reputational harm;
• Potential exposure of trade secrets through patent publication, which is irreversible.

Best practices when disclosing know-how in patent-related contexts

1. Draft robust and purpose-specific non-disclosure agreements NDAs

Generic templates are often insufficient. Tailor each NDA to the context, ensuring:

• A clear definition of what constitutes confidential information;
• Explicit terms regarding the prohibition (or permitted use) of such information in patent filings;
• Provisions reserving all pre-existing intellectual property rights of the disclosing party.

2. Secure proof of prior ownership of the invention

Maintain a systematic internal record of technical developments through:

• Invention Disclosure Forms (IDFs), signed and timestamped;
• Digital vaults or sealed e-Soleau envelopes for sensitive developments;
• Logs of internal emails and R&D notes to evidence early-stage ownership.

These records are crucial in proving entitlement and defeating wrongful ownership claims.

3. Clarify intellectual property clauses in all agreements

Beyond NDAs, ensure contracts such as R&D orders, joint development agreements, or licensing deals clearly state:

• Who owns the results and deliverables;
• The extent and limitations of assignments or licensing rights.

4. Explicitly reject conflicting general terms and conditions

Never rely on silence. In the Air Liquide case, the GTCs invoked by one party were ultimately deemed unenforceable due to:

• Lack of acceptance by the counterparty;
• Inconsistent communications showing clear disagreement.

To avoid ambiguity:

• Always confirm acceptance or rejection of GTCs in writing;
• Include IP-specific carve-outs in contracts or appendices.

5. Implement a controlled internal disclosure protocol

Companies should adopt a standardized protocol prior to any external exchange:

• Legal review of disclosure scope;
• Document classification and labelling (e.g., “Confidential – Do Not Distribute”);
• Internal tracking of disclosures: to whom, when, why, and under what conditions.

Conclusion: minimizing patent liability through preventive action

Patent-related liability arising from improper use or disclosure of know-how can be devastating legally, financially, and reputationally. Whether in open innovation or bilateral technical cooperation, prevention through contractual rigor and internal diligence remains the best defense.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram 

FAQ

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in SkyKick UK Ltd and another v. Sky Ltd and others has significantly impacted trademark law, particularly concerning the breadth of specifications and the concept of bad faith. This ruling underscores the importance of aligning trademark specifications with genuine commercial intentions.

Background of the SkyKick v Sky Case

In 2016, Sky Ltd, a prominent broadcaster and telecommunications company, initiated legal proceedings against SkyKick, a US-based cloud management software provider, alleging trade mark infringement. Sky’s claims were based on its extensive trade mark registrations covering a wide array of goods and services. SkyKick countered by challenging the validity of Sky’s trademarks, asserting that they were registered in bad faith due to their overly broad specifications without genuine intent to use the marks across all listed categories.

Legal framework and Supreme Court’s findings

Understanding bad faith in trademark law

Under Section 3(6) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, a trademark shall not be registered if the application is made in bad faith. The concept of bad faith involves a lack of genuine intention to use the trade mark for the goods and services specified at the time of application.

Supreme Court’s analysis

The Supreme Court held that:

• Overly broad specifications: Filing for a wide range of goods and services without a genuine intention to use the trade mark for all of them can indicate bad faith.
• Assessment of intent: The applicant’s intention at the time of filing is crucial. A lack of intention to use the mark for certain goods or services, especially when the specification is excessively broad, supports a finding of bad faith.
• Partial invalidity: If bad faith is established for certain goods or services, the trade mark can be partially invalidated for those specific categories.

This decision emphasizes that trade mark applications must reflect a genuine commercial strategy and not serve as a means to unjustly monopolize market segments.

Implications for trademark applicants

Strategic considerations

Trademark applicants should:

• Align specifications with business activities: Ensure that the goods and services listed in the application correspond to current or planned business operations.
• Avoid overly broad terms: Refrain from using vague or broad categories without a clear intention to use the trade mark across all specified areas.
• Maintain documentation: Keep records demonstrating the intention to use the trade mark for each specified good or service at the time of application.

Risk management

Companies must be aware that:

• Enforcement actions may backfire: Initiating infringement proceedings based on broad specifications can lead to counterclaims of bad faith, potentially resulting in partial invalidation of the trade mark.
• Portfolio audits are essential: Regularly reviewing trade mark portfolios to ensure that all registrations are defensible and align with genuine business intentions is crucial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the SkyKick case serves as a pivotal reminder of the importance of integrity and genuine intent in trade mark applications. Applicants must ensure that their trade mark specifications are precise and reflect actual or planned use to withstand legal scrutiny and maintain robust protection.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in intellectual property law, offering expert guidance on trade mark registration, portfolio management, and enforcement strategies. Our team is dedicated to ensuring that your intellectual property rights are secured and maintained with the highest level of professionalism and integrity.

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

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

In an era marked by increasingly sophisticated and cross-sectoral cyberattacks, organizations must move beyond fragmented responses. A structured, anticipatory, and collaborative approach to cyber-risk governance is now imperative.

The NIS360 framework, advocated by Ioanna Antcheva, emerges as a strategic solution—an approach grounded in information sharing, strong governance, and continuous improvement. At its core lies a fundamental belief: digital security is a collective responsibility.

NIS360: an integrated cybersecurity framework

Designed for both public and private organizations, NIS360 offers a holistic methodology to govern cyber risks through three essential dynamics: identification, anticipation, and response.

Foundational pillars of NIS360

• Risk identification and control

The process begins with mapping internal vulnerabilities and external threats while evaluating their potential business impact. This diagnostic phase is critical to designing an effective and resilient cybersecurity architecture.

• Incident response planning

Organizations must prepare for the inevitable. This includes developing real-time response protocols, assigning clear operational roles, and conducting simulations to test crisis readiness.

• Strategic intelligence sharing

A core principle of NIS360 is to foster structured collaboration between public institutions, private entities, and regulators. Shared cyber intelligence accelerates threat detection and enhances collective resilience.

• Compliance and governance

Adherence to regulatory frameworks such as the NIS2 Directive, GDPR, and national cybersecurity agency guidelines (e.g., ANSSI in France) must be embedded into corporate governance. Executive leadership must be directly involved in cyber oversight.

Operationalizing the NIS360 framework

Engaging all stakeholders

Cybersecurity cannot be siloed within IT departments. The NIS360 model calls for the active engagement of all business units executive management, legal, human resources, procurement, and external partners. This transversal alignment strengthens coherence and accountability.

Continuous monitoring and adaptive response

A cybersecurity framework must evolve alongside the threat landscape. Long-term effectiveness relies on:

• Timely updates to detection and prevention tools
• Routine audits and performance assessments
• Agility in updating policies, controls, and procedures

NIS360 promotes a “cybersecurity lifecycle” approach, incorporating continuous legal and technological monitoring to adapt to emerging risks.

Legal and regulatory considerations

Implementing the NIS360 framework requires close attention to legal risk management. Key compliance sources include:

• The NIS2 Directive, which expands obligations for essential and important entities across critical sectors
• The GDPR, particularly concerning breach notification and data protection principles
• National-level recommendations (e.g., CNIL, ANSSI) that detail preventive measures and incident response protocols

Failure to comply may expose an organization to administrative fines, reputational harm, and even civil or criminal liability.

Conclusion and strategic outlook

The NIS360 framework establishes a new European benchmark in cyber-risk management. It encourages organizations to embrace a proactive, integrated, and leadership-driven approach.

Anticipation, information sharing, and compliance are the cornerstones of this model. Organizations that embed NIS360 not only strengthen their cyber-resilience but also bolster their market credibility with stakeholders, regulators, and investors.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram 

FAQ