News

Introduction

In the luxury perfume industry, each fragrance represents much more than just a product: it embodies the identity of a brand, the result of unique craftsmanship, and a sensory promise. However, the rise of “dupes“, affordable imitations of high-end perfumes, challenges the legal protection of olfactory creations. This article explores the legal challenges posed by dupes and the strategies brands can use to defend their creations.

Dupes: A threat to brand integrity

Dupes, often marketed as “inspired by” famous perfumes, seek to circumvent legal protections. These products imitate fragrances, packaging, and sometimes even names, misleading consumers without explicitly infringing on intellectual property rights. For instance, brands like Dossier offer alternatives to perfumes such as Le Labo Santal 33 or Gucci Bloom, providing a similar olfactory experience at a fraction of the price.

1. Threat to Intellectual Property Rights of brands

Dupes dilute the value of brands by imitating their products at a lower cost, which harms their exclusivity and prestige. They hijack the image of well-known brands, thereby reducing their market impact. Additionally, unfair competition hinders innovation in the industry by exploiting creations without investing in originality.

2. Risks for consumers

Dupes pose quality and safety risks because they do not adhere to the standards of luxury perfumes. Their composition may be of lower quality, or even dangerous to health. By misleading consumers, these imitations also distort the perception of the true value of authentic products, creating confusion in the minds of consumers.

3. Unfair competition and distorted market

Dupes take advantage of the efforts of established brands without respecting their rights, creating unfair competition. This situation harms market transparency, making it harder for consumers to distinguish between authentic products and imitations, destabilizing the industry as a whole.

The L’Oréal v Bellure case (2009) perfectly illustrates this issue. In this case, the defendant produced perfume dupes and distributed them to retailers with a product list referencing the names of L’Oréal’s well-known fragrances. The European Court of Justice ruled that this behavior constituted unfair conduct equivalent to trademark infringement, as it exploited the reputation of L’Oréal to attract consumers without financial compensation. The use of well-known brand names in product lists, even without deceiving consumers about the origin, was considered unlawful comparative advertising.

This decision highlights the dangers of dupes, which, by imitating established brands, distort competition and threaten market clarity, contributing to consumer confusion and the erosion of the differentiation between authentic products and imitations.

The limits of legal protection for perfumes

1. Odor: A difficult-to-protect intangible property

Unlike other sensory creations, the odor of a perfume is difficult to protect. Copyright law, for example, requires a graphic representation, which is impossible for a fragrance. Additionally, the subjective nature of olfactory perception complicates the precise identification necessary for legal protection.

2. Olfactory trademarks: A complex registration process

Registering olfactory trademarks remains a major challenge. The primary difficulty lies in the precise description of an odor, which remains a subjective sensation that is hard to capture objectively. Moreover, in order for an olfactory trademark to be registered, it must demonstrate distinctiveness, meaning it must be proven that it allows consumers to identify the commercial origin of a product.

3. Trade secrets: A strategic alternative

The chemical formula of a perfume, although valuable, can be protected as a trade secret. This protection is based on:

• Confidentiality
• Absence of public disclosure
• Appropriate security measures

However, this strategy presents risks, especially in cases of information leakage or employee poaching.

Combating dupes: Strategies and actions

1. Active market surveillance

Brands must implement continuous monitoring to detect imitations of their products. This includes surveillance of online platforms, marketplaces, and physical retail points.

2. Tailored legal actions

When facing dupes, legal actions must be targeted. Sending cease-and-desist letters can be an initial step. In case of recidivism, more formal judicial procedures, such as actions for unfair competition or parasitism, may be considered.

3. Collaboration with Intellectual Property experts

Brands should collaborate with intellectual property experts to develop effective protection strategies. This includes drafting solid contracts, setting up internal confidentiality procedures, and training staff on intellectual property matters.

Conclusion

Fighting dupes in the perfume industry requires a proactive, multidimensional approach. While current legal protections have limitations, well-tailored strategies—combining market surveillance, targeted legal actions, and collaboration with experts—can help brands preserve the integrity of their olfactory creations.

Dreyfus & Associés is partnered with a global network of intellectual property lawyers.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the help of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. What is a “dupe” in perfumery?
A “dupe” is an imitation of a luxury perfume, often sold at a lower price, that attempts to replicate the scent, packaging, and sometimes the name of a famous fragrance without guaranteeing the same level of quality.

2. Why is the odor of a perfume difficult to protect legally?
Odor cannot be protected by copyright because it is a subjective sensation and cannot be represented graphically in a precise way, which prevents stable identification.

3. How can a brand protect its fragrances from dupes?
Brands can protect their olfactory creations by using trade secrets to protect the formula and by actively monitoring the market for imitations.

4. Is it possible to protect a perfume formula?
Yes, the formula of a perfume can be protected as a trade secret, provided strict security measures are in place to ensure confidentiality.

5. Can the packaging of a perfume be protected by copyright?
Yes, the design of a perfume’s packaging can be protected by copyright if it presents original characteristics and is recognized as an artistic work.

Introduction

In a constantly evolving digital environment, the protection of intellectual property and the safeguarding of individual rights online have become essential. In the United States, the fight against copyright infringement has relied for more than twenty years on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). However, with the rise of new threats, particularly linked to deepfakes and the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, a new piece of legislation has emerged: the Take It Down Act.

This article examines the scope, functioning, and impact of this law, comparing it with the DMCA to better understand their complementarity.

What is the take it down act?

The take it down act is a recent US legislative initiative designed to allow the removal of intimate images of minors and non-consensual sexual content, including those artificially generated through deepfakes.

Unlike traditional copyright-centered legislation, this Act aims to directly protect victims of image-based abuse. Online platforms are now required to establish accessible, fast, and effective takedown procedures.

This mechanism reflects a strong societal priority: safeguarding the dignity and privacy of individuals in an age of algorithmic manipulation.

The DMCA: origins, objectives, and scope

Why was the DMCA adopted?

Enacted in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is the cornerstone of online copyright enforcement in the United States. It was designed to align US law with the WIPO Internet treaties and to adapt legislation to the growing use of the Internet.

Its primary purpose is to combat large-scale piracy, while establishing a safe harbor regime for online service providers that comply with takedown requests.

How does it work in practice?

The DMCA allows rights holders to:

• Send a takedown notice to hosting providers and platforms;
• Obtain the prompt removal of infringing content without prior court intervention;
• Benefit from deterrent sanctions against persistent infringers.

Nevertheless, it has been criticized for its abuses, with some parties misusing it to censor legitimate content.

How does take It down Act differ from the DMCA?

A targeted response to deepfakes and intimate images

Whereas the DMCA applies to copyright-protected works, the Take It Down Act addresses personal and intimate content over which victims may not hold intellectual property rights. It therefore fills a significant legal gap.

The obligations under the Act include:

• Implementing verification procedures for requests made by minors or adults;
• Complying with short response deadlines for removals;
• Ensuring greater transparency in complaint mechanisms.

New obligations for platforms

Social networks, hosting providers, and specialized websites are subject to:

• Reinforced compliance standards;
• Increased liability in the event of inaction;
• Financial and reputational risks in case of non-compliance.

This evolution marks a major shift in responsibility towards digital intermediaries.

Strategic consequences for rights holders and businesses

Risks, compliance, and reputation management

For companies, particularly in the technology, cultural, and luxury sectors, both the DMCA and Take It Down Act raise significant challenges:

• Enhanced monitoring of platforms to detect unauthorized use;
• Anticipation of identity and image-related infringements;
• International cooperation to address the cross-border nature of online violations.

The role of specialized legal counsel

A specialized law firm can provide:

• Monitoring and detection services to identify online infringements;
• Drafting and transmission of notices in line with applicable frameworks;
• Strategic advice to mitigate risks and protect brand reputation.

Such support enables businesses to strengthen their digital resilience and secure their intangible assets.

Conclusion

The take it down act does not replace the DMCA, but rather serves as a necessary complement. While the DMCA remains central in the fight against copyright infringement, The take it down Act provides a legal response adapted to abuses linked to intimate images and deepfakes.

Companies must now consider a comprehensive compliance strategy, combining intellectual property protection with the defense of personal rights.

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

Dreyfus Law firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. What is the take it down act?
A US law requiring the removal of non-consensual personal images, including AI-generated content.

2. How does the take it down act differ from the DMCA?
The DMCA protects copyright, while Take It Down Act addresses abuse of personal and private images.

3. Are online platforms legally required to comply?
Yes, they must implement effective mechanisms or face sanctions.

4. Can the take it down act be used to protect trademarks?
No. Trademarks and copyright issues fall under the DMCA and traditional IP enforcement.

5. Is the DMCA still relevant?
Yes, it remains the primary tool for combating online copyright infringement.

Introduction

The Internet’s naming system is expanding again. After the landmark 2012 round of new gTLD applications (which saw more than 1,900 applications and over 1,200 delegated domains), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is preparing to open the Next Round of the New generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program in April 2026.

Much has changed since 2012: the rules, the support mechanisms, the financial model, and the governance structure. For businesses, communities, and organizations considering applying for their own top-level domain (TLD), preparation today is essential.

Key changes from 2012 to the 2026 round

• Updated Applicant Guidebook (AGB)

In 2012, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) (will add link) was introduced for the first time, with a steep learning curve.

For the 2026 round, ICANN has committed to publishing a new version of the AGB in mid-2025. This updated guide clarifies evaluation criteria, dispute procedures, and timelines.

• Applicant Support Program (ASP)

The Applicant Support Program (ASP) is already open and accepting applications as of November 2024, well before the main round. The ASP provides financial aid and non-financial assistance to applicants from developing regions or with limited resources. Several applications have already been submitted under this track, showing growing interest from communities that were largely absent in 2012.

• Registry Service Provider (RSP) Evaluation Program

In 2012, every applicant’s backend provider was evaluated separately, creating redundancies.
The RSP Evaluation Program, which also opened in November 2024, is now active. Providers can undergo one pre-evaluation, and applicants can then choose from this pool of approved providers.
This reduces duplication, speeds up the process, and provides greater assurance to ICANN and applicants alike.

• Governance, planning, and budget

The 2012 round faced criticism for backlogs and unclear governance. In the Next Round, ICANN is implementing a multi-year plan, with four workstreams and nine projects, alongside structured risk management. The ICANN Board has allocated $70 million for implementation, of which $45 million has already been deployed.

• Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) and Root Zone Label Rules

In 2012, IDN applications were allowed but not uniformly regulated. The Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR) Version 6, which defines valid top-level IDN labels, has been updated to include the Thaana script, representing the 27th script in the RZ-LGR. This expansion allows for the introduction of new IDN gTLDs in previously unsupported scripts. Communities continue to define rules for additional scripts to be adopted.

• Application fees

In 2012, the application fee was 185,000 USD. For the 2026 round, the expected fee is around 227,000 USD. However, there will be various additional fees applicable to certain types of applications, while objections, challenges and appeals will require additional fees. In order to keep the price as stable as possible ICANN has put in place the Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program and the re-ordering of the evaluation timeline to deal with contention resolutions early in the process.

How to prepare for the 2026 application window

• Study the framework and monitor updates

The 2012 AGB remains a valuable reference. The new AGB draft is due in 2025,  applicants should watch for its release and adjust their strategy accordingly.

• Engage with support programs now

• Applicant Support Program (ASP): Already open since November 2024 and currently receiving applications.
• RSP Evaluation Program: Active since November 2024. Applicants should ensure that their chosen backend provider is pre-evaluated.

• Build a robust application strategy

Applicants must demonstrate:

A clear governance model for the proposed TLD.

Technical and operational capacity (with or without an RSP).

Financial sustainability.

Public interest commitments where relevant.

• Coordinate with language or community groups

For IDN applications, confirm that your script is covered by the RZ-LGR. If not, engage early with linguistic communities.

• Assemble your team and advisors

Legal, financial, and technical expertise are critical. Many applicants are already turning to specialized consultants and law firms to prepare complete applications.

• Stay informed

ICANN continues to release regular status updates at each public meeting. These documents are essential for aligning with evolving requirements and timelines.

What’s different for brand owners in 2026

The 2012 round was the first time businesses could apply for “.brand” top-level domains (TLDs). Many companies hesitated, viewing the model as experimental. Today, the situation has shifted significantly.

• .Brand registries are proven: More than 500 brands now operate their own TLDs, such as .bmw .microsoft, .fox, .amazon, and .sky. Lessons learned over the past decade show clear branding and security benefits, while also clarifying operational challenges.
• Simplified technical path: In 2012, brand owners had to secure bespoke backend technical evaluations. With the new Registry Service Provider (RSP) Evaluation Program, companies can rely on pre-approved providers, lowering technical and financial barriers.
• Predictable compliance: ICANN now enforces Public Interest Commitments and registry obligations with a decade of experience. Brand TLD owners can expect more consistency, but also tighter oversight.
• Transparent financial model: Fees are higher (expected around USD 227,000) but clearer. Ongoing costs are better defined, enabling more accurate long-term planning.
• Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) are mature: The Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise, and dispute systems that debuted in 2012 are now well established. This maturity reduces risk for brand TLDs and provides stronger enforcement tools.
• International reach with IDNs: Non-Latin scripts (Chinese, Arabic, Cyrillic, etc.) can now be applied for under the Root Zone Label Generation Rules. Global brands gain more opportunities for consistent identity across markets.

For brand owners, the Next Round represents a shift from “exploration” to strategic necessity. Owning a TLD is increasingly tied to digital trust, consumer engagement, and long-term sovereignty over online identity.

Conclusion

The Next Round of new gTLDs, opening in April 2026, is a more structured, better funded, and more inclusive process than was the 2012 round. With the Applicant Support Program and RSP Evaluation Program already underway the window for early preparation is open now.

The time to act is now. For businesses, communities, and innovators, owning a TLD is not only about branding, but also about digital trust, sovereignty, and long-term visibility.

Dreyfus & Associates works in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property law firms.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

What is the New gTLD Program and why is it important in 2026?

The New gTLD Program allows businesses, communities, and organizations to apply for their own top-level domain. The 2026 round is more structured, better funded, and more inclusive than the 2012 round, making preparation essential.

How much does it cost to apply for a new gTLD in 2026?

The expected application fee is around USD 227,000, higher than the USD 185,000 charged in 2012. Additional fees may apply for objections, challenges, or appeals.

What support programs are available for applicants?

Two programs are already active: the Applicant Support Program (ASP), which provides financial and technical aid for applicants from developing regions, and the Registry Service Provider (RSP) Evaluation Program, which pre-approves backend providers.

What opportunities exist for brand owners?

Over 500 brands (.bmw, .microsoft, .amazon) already operate their own registries. In 2026, brand owners benefit from simplified technical requirements, predictable compliance, mature rights protection mechanisms, and new opportunities with IDNs.

How can companies prepare for the 2026 application window?

Preparation should include studying the upcoming Applicant Guidebook, engaging with ASP and RSP programs, building a robust governance and financial model, working with advisors, and monitoring ICANN updates.

Introduction

Before launching a brand, a clearance search is indispensable. It verifies the existence of prior rights (trademarks, trade names, domain names, unregistered uses) that could block registration or prohibit the use of the mark. In France, in the European Union, and more generally worldwide, this verification is the responsibility of the applicant.

Overlooking this step may have serious consequences: opposition proceedings, infringement litigation, or even the obligation to rebrand after considerable marketing investments. Conversely, a well-conducted search not only secures the filing but also anticipates disputes and enables smooth negotiations with prior right holders.

Why is a clearance search indispensable?

Definition and legal imperative (France and the European Union)

A clearance search aims to identify existing signs likely to prevent registration. In France and for EU trademarks, the trademark offices (INPI and EUIPO) do not examine potential conflicts, since this analysis lies with the applicant. In international trademark procedures, WIPO merely transmits the application to the designated offices.

Practical stakes and concrete risks

Without a clearance search, you risk:

• Opposition before the trademark offices once the application is published;
• Cancellation actions after registration;
• Infringement actions with damages once the mark is on the market;
• Prohibition of use and costly rebranding;
• Delayed launches and loss of competitive advantage.

By contrast, a sound search assesses the likelihood of confusion, anticipates objections, and optimises the scope of goods and services.

Comparative frameworks: United States, France and the European Union

An instructive U.S. example: the Huella case (TTAB, May 7, 2025)

In the United States, the USPTO refuses registration where there is a “likelihood of confusion” between signs and the goods and services are related. This is one of the most common grounds for refusal. Indeed, the USPTO carries out its own clearance search during examination.

In the Huella case of 7 May 2025, the registration of a mark for leather bags (Class 18) was refused because of an earlier registration for cosmetics (Class 3). The Board found:

• extensive evidence of cross-use by third-party brands (cosmetics and bags marketed under the same mark);
• an inherent connection, since leather bags includes cosmetic cases;
• no limitations on distribution channels in the identification, which implied overlapping trade channels and consumer bases.

The refusal was therefore upheld. Even if classes differ, goods may still be deemed related. A clearance search must therefore cover not only the intended classes but also related ones, taking into account distribution channels.

French and European references (INPI, EUIPO, WIPO)

In France, searches rely on INPI’s database; at the EU level, on EUIPO; for global strategy, WIPO is essential. These tools help identify prior signs, but interpretation always requires legal expertise, considering confusion risks, market practice, and possible notoriety of existing marks. Engaging a specialist is strongly advised, as practitioners have access to enhanced databases and can deliver an optimal risk assessment.

Best practices for comprehensive and strategic searches

Key steps not to be overlooked

1. Define precisely the sign to be protected (word mark, logo, variations).
2. Identify relevant classes and related classes under the Nice Classification.
3. Conduct searches among registered trademarks in France, the EU, and, if expansion is envisaged, in the U.S. and other countries of manufacture, marketing, or projection.
4. Review the results with legal analysis (visual, phonetic, conceptual)while considering recent case law.
5. Assess the likelihood of confusion in light of goods and services and the relevant public.
6. Determine the appropriate strategy: filing, adapting the mark, coexistence agreement, or abandoning the project.

Complementary searches to be conducted simultaneously

Beyond registered trademarks, it is vital to check:

• Corporate names and trade names (Infogreffe, SIRENE).
• Domain names and use on social networks.
• Copyrights and/or designs.

These elements may present legal obstacles just as serious as a registered trademark.

Conclusion and call to action

A clearance search is the first safeguard against legal uncertainty. It enables confident investment, avoids costly disputes, and strengthens brand strategy. This indispensable step requires the expertise of a professional able to “read between the lines” and measure the commercial impact of existing signs.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.
Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

How does a clearance search differ from a simple Google search?

An online search does not cover official registers and cannot assess legal risk. INPI, EUIPO, and WIPO databases are indispensable. Legal expertise is required to interpret results and to propose a clearance strategy if conflicts arise.

Is a search mandatory before filing?

No, but it is strongly recommended: failing to conduct one transfers the entire legal risk to the applicant and creates a permanent threat. At any time—even years after launch—you may face infringement claims and substantial damages. Moreover, rebranding costs after years of investment may be enormous.

Do searches limited to the exact class of goods/services suffice to avoid conflicts?

Not always. Case law shows that market connections (e.g. fashion and cosmetics) can establish a likelihood of confusion. This is why the involvement of an IP specialist is essential to determine the appropriate scope of the search.

Can a mark be filed despite a similar prior right?

Yes, provided that consent is obtained, a coexistence agreement is signed, or the goods/services are restricted.

Can an unregistered mark block an application?

Yes. If it is well-known or significantly used, it can be opposed to a filing in France. In addition, “common law” rights may arise through use, notably in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.

Introduction

An international trademark is a mark registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Madrid Protocol. This system allows a trademark owner to seek protection in multiple countries through a single procedure, thereby simplifying administrative formalities and optimizing the costs of international protection. An international trademark is recognized by all member states of the Madrid Protocol, provided that the basic mark has already been registered in a member country.

In this article, we present Article 4bis of the Madrid Protocol as a strategic lever enabling the substitution of national or regional trademark registrations with an international registration, thus consolidating rights, rationalizing the portfolio, and providing optimal legal security.

What is article 4bis?

Article 4bis of the Madrid Protocol provides that when a trademark already registered at the national or regional level (e.g., the EU) also becomes the subject of an international registration in the name of the same owner, and the designation takes effect after the date of the earlier mark, the international registration is deemed to replace the earlier registration, without prejudice to rights acquired under the latter. This provision does not cancel the initial registration but recognizes its legal equivalence with the international registration for protection in the relevant jurisdiction.

What does it provide for?

Automatic replacement applies as soon as the conditions are met (identical holder, identical mark, same scope of goods/services, later date). No formalities are strictly required, but they are highly recommended.Upon request, the national office must record a mention of the replacement in its register and notify WIPO’s International Bureau, which will enter the information into the International Register. This mention provides greater visibility for third parties and facilitates the administrative management of the portfolio.

Strategic issues in the use of article 4bis

Benefits and advantages

• Streamline the trademark portfolio by progressively eliminating redundant registrations.
• Preserve rights such as earlier priority or prior use of the mark.

The priority attached to the national trademark is automatically preserved when replacement occurs. Thus, if the national mark benefited from a priority claim under Article 4 of the Paris Convention, that priority is transferred by operation of law to the international registration that replaces it. The holder therefore retains the advantage of the earlier priority date, even if the national registration is not subsequently renewed. No particular formalities are required, as this protection flows directly from Article 4bis of the Madrid Protocol.

Similarly, the use made of the national trademark is deemed valid use of the international registration. In other words, continued exploitation of the national mark serves to demonstrate use of the international registration and prevents any action for cancellation based on non-use. This assimilation of use operates automatically, without the need for specific administrative steps. In practice, however, it remains essential to keep records of exploitation under the national mark, as such evidence may be relied upon in support of the international registration in the event of a dispute.

• Enhance legal security for third parties through an official mention in the registers.

It refers to an official entry in the registers that notifies that the national trademark has been replaced by an international registration in certain countries. This means that third parties (such as competitors or potential trademark holders) are informed of a change in the trademark’s status, ensuring that they are aware that the national registration has been replaced by an international registration and that international protection now applies.

• Optimize costs by consolidating renewals into a single international procedure.

What to expect / points of caution

• Both registrations (national and international) coexist as long as one or the other is renewed.
• The five-year dependency period of the international registration may pose a risk if the national mark is challenged during this time.
• The loss or cancellation of the basic national mark within this period results in the cancellation of the international registration in all designated jurisdictions.

Limitations

• Not all states recognize the automatic replacement of the national trademark by the international registration, or the option of partial replacement. It is therefore important to contact the trademark offices.
• Partial replacement is possible in certain jurisdictions (e.g., the United States since 2021 under the amended Rule 21) but requires detailed local analysis.

Since November 21, 2024, the United Kingdom has implemented a rule allowing the partial replacement of national registrations with international registrations. This rule enables trademark holders to request the partial replacement of their national registration with an international registration covering only a portion of the goods or services. There must be an overlap between the goods or services covered by the national registration and those of the international registration.

• This is not a transfer of rights but an administrative mention in the register accessible to third parties.

Article 4bis of the Madrid Protocol does not result in the transfer of ownership rights from the national or regional trademark to the international registration. In other words, the trademark holder retains all acquired rights on the national trademark, even after the international registration has come into effect.
The administrative mention in the register simply means that an entry is made in the official registers to indicate that the international registration legally replaces the national or regional registration in the relevant jurisdictions. This ensures better visibility for third parties.

Strategy to adopt

• Carry out a portfolio audit to identify national/regional marks that could be replaced.
• Verify that the international registration covers the full scope of goods/services, including in their exact or equivalent wording.
• File a request with the national office to record the substitution and secure the information.
• Monitor the five-year dependency period and keep the national registration active if necessary.
• Take advantage of partial replacement mechanisms in countries where admitted, to align protection with real business needs.

In certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, this replacement may be partial: only some goods or services are transferred to the international registration, while the others remain covered by the national mark. This helps avoid duplication and allows the protection to be adjusted to actual needs.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Article 4bis is a precise tool for consolidating trademark rights at the international level while preserving initial rights. When properly used, it allows for a streamlined management of a portfolio, stronger legal certainty, and cost optimization.

Dreyfus Law firm is well-versed in the subject and the technicalities of international trademarks. The firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

What are the conditions for replacement to apply?

Replacement applies when the trademark owner is identical, the trademark itself is identical, the goods/services are equivalent, and the international designation takes effect after the national or regional registration.

Does the national registration disappear after replacement?

No, the national registration continues to exist, but it is legally replaced by the international registration for the designated jurisdictions.

Is it mandatory to record the replacement mention with the national office?

No, recording the mention is not mandatory, but it is highly recommended to secure the substitution and guarantee legal visibility. We recommend contacting an intellectual property expert to ensure that your protection strategy is adequate and properly secured.

Can the basic mark be replaced?

Yes, the basic mark can be replaced by an international registration, provided that the conditions for replacement are met. In fact, this will be possible after the five-year dependency period provided for under the Madrid system.

Does the five-year dependency period have an impact on strategy?

Yes, the five-year dependency period means that the international registration depends on the maintenance of the basic mark, which may introduce risks if the national mark is challenged.

Cloud Computing has become an indispensable technology for businesses of all sizes, widely integrated into daily operations. While initially perceived as a technological revolution, it has now become an integral part of the modern IT landscape. Cloud allows organizations to access IT services such as data storage, applications, or computing power via remote servers, without the need to invest in complex physical infrastructure.

The adoption of Cloud Computing has profoundly changed how businesses manage their IT resources. Thanks to its flexibility, scalability, and optimized costs, the cloud has become an essential strategic lever. From startups to multinational corporations, including the public sector, this technology offers a simple and effective solution to meet the growing demands for performance, security, and data accessibility.

Introduction to Cloud Computing

Cloud computing emerged in the 2000s as a response to the growing needs of businesses for flexibility, scalability, and cost reduction. Previously, companies had to make significant investments in physical servers and complex IT infrastructures to store their data and run applications. While these systems were effective, they represented a heavy investment in terms of purchasing, maintenance, and upgrading costs.

The rise of cloud computing changed this situation by offering an online solution where IT resources such as storage, computing, and applications are provided by remote servers accessible via the internet. This model not only eliminated the need for costly local infrastructure but also allowed for more flexible and scalable data management.

Cloud computing relies on virtualization technology, which allows physical resources to be shared across multiple remote servers. Instead of purchasing and maintaining individual servers, a company can access a shared virtual infrastructure, in a flexible, on-demand manner. This “on-demand” model allows businesses to rent only the resources they need, based on their current needs, and quickly adjust these resources as demand evolves.

Different types of Cloud Computing

Cloud computing takes several forms tailored to business needs. Each of these forms offers distinct advantages in terms of control, security, and flexibility.

Public Cloud

The public cloud is the most common form of cloud computing. In this model, IT services are hosted on public servers and are accessible via the internet. Providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform offer computing and storage resources in a flexible, on-demand manner.

Private Cloud

The private cloud is a model where a business retains full control over its resources and data, often using dedicated servers. This model is commonly adopted by large enterprises that require a high level of customization, security, and control.

Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)

The Virtual Private Cloud offers a hybrid solution, combining the security of a private cloud with the flexibility of a public cloud. It allows for the creation of an isolated environment within the public cloud, ensuring a high level of security and control while benefiting from the flexibility of the cloud.

Hybrid Cloud

The hybrid cloud combines multiple types of clouds, allowing businesses to benefit from both the public and private cloud advantages. This enables the transfer of workloads between clouds based on specific needs, creating a more flexible and scalable IT environment.

Benefits of Cloud Computing

Cloud computing offers many benefits for businesses of all sizes. These benefits, covering both financial and technical aspects, help companies optimize their processes while reducing costs.

Cost optimization

One of the major advantages of cloud computing is the reduction of IT infrastructure costs. Unlike a traditional model where a company must invest heavily in servers and infrastructure, the cloud allows businesses to pay only for what they use. This pay-as-you-go model offers great flexibility and allows for better resource management.

Scalability and flexibility

Cloud enables businesses to quickly adjust their resources based on their needs. Storage and processing capacities can be increased or decreased in just a few minutes, offering unparalleled flexibility, especially during peak periods.

Reliability and accessibility

Thanks to virtualization, cloud computing services are highly reliable. In case of a server failure, the service can automatically switch to another server without interruption for the user. Additionally, these services are accessible from anywhere, at any time, on any device connected to the internet, facilitating remote work and distributed teams.

Risks and challenges of Cloud Computing

Despite its many advantages, cloud computing also presents challenges that businesses must be mindful of. These risks mainly concern security and dependency on the provider.

Data security

Data security in the cloud remains a major concern for many businesses. While cloud providers invest heavily in security technologies, there are still risks related to unauthorized access, data loss, and privacy breaches. It is essential for businesses to review the terms of service and ensure that the provider offers adequate security guarantees.

Internet dependency

Cloud computing relies on a stable internet connection, and an outage or disconnection could render services inaccessible. Additionally, dependency on a single provider poses a risk in case of provider failure, or if the company decides to switch providers.

Conclusion

Cloud computing represents a major technological shift for businesses. It not only helps reduce costs and increase flexibility but also offers access to powerful IT resources without the need to invest in costly infrastructures. However, to fully benefit from it, companies must carefully choose their cloud providers and implement robust security measures to protect sensitive data.

Dreyfus & Associés is partnered with a global network of intellectual property attorneys. Our expertise allows us to effectively assist you in managing the legal challenges associated with adopting cloud computing.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the help of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

What is cloud computing and how does it work?

Cloud computing allows businesses to access IT services (such as storage, computing, or applications) via the internet, using remote servers. Instead of investing in costly physical infrastructures, businesses can rent these services on-demand based on their needs.What are the main types of cloud computing?

There are several types of cloud computing:

• Public Cloud: Services hosted on public servers, accessible via the internet.
• Private Cloud: Infrastructure dedicated to a single business, offering full control.
• Virtual Private Cloud (VPC): Combines the advantages of both private and public clouds, with a secure environment.
• Hybrid Cloud: Combines multiple types of clouds, offering flexibility and security.

What are the main benefits of cloud computing for businesses?

Benefits include cost reduction, scalability (the ability to add or reduce resources as needed), and increased accessibility, allowing employees to work from anywhere, at any time, on any device.

What are the risks associated with using cloud computing?

Risks include data security, particularly the potential for unauthorized access or privacy violations, and dependency on the internet and the service provider. A failing internet connection or a provider facing issues can cause service interruptions.

How can data security be ensured in the cloud?

To ensure data security, it’s crucial to choose a reputable cloud provider, use encryption technologies, and verify the security guarantees provided in the service terms. Businesses should also implement strict access and data management policies.

Introduction

Decree No. 2025-660 of 18 July 2025 marks a decisive step in the evolution of civil litigation in France. It places amicable settlement between the parties at the very heart of the procedure, relegating the role of the judge to one of support and guarantee.

The objective is clear: to reduce the burden and slowness of proceedings, to grant litigants greater freedom, and to encourage cooperation rather than confrontation. The parties may now, with the assistance of their lawyers, determine the organisation and pace of their dispute themselves.

In practice, two avenues are now available: a flexible conventional case management for simpler matters, and a more structured participatory procedure for complex disputes. In all instances, the judge intervenes as a secondary arbiter, ensuring fairness and the security of the process.

Another major innovation is that the judge may now require the parties to meet with a mediator. Refusal without legitimate grounds exposes the party to a financial penalty of up to €10,000. This measure reflects a strong political will to embed a genuine “amicable culture” within the French judicial landscape.

For businesses, the reform translates into disputes being resolved more quickly, at lower cost, and with greater predictability. For lawyers, it offers the opportunity not only to defend, but also to build tailor-made solutions.

Conventional case management: a new guiding principle

A reversed logic: settlement before the judge

Until now, the management of a civil case was dictated by a timetable imposed by the judge. The decree reverses this logic: it is now for the parties, assisted by their lawyers, to determine the modalities of case management. The judge intervenes only in the event of a deadlock or failure.

This shift is far from trivial. It reflects a political desire to reduce court congestion while making justice more efficient. It also enhances the responsibility of the parties, who become active participants in their dispute rather than passive spectators of an imposed procedure.

Take the example of a trademark infringement dispute. Instead of waiting for hearings scheduled months apart, the parties may agree on a timetable tailored to their economic constraints, subject to simplified validation by the judge. This reduces delays and prevents purely dilatory strategies.

Two procedures adapted to the complexity of the dispute

The decree distinguishes between:

• Conventional case management of general application, more flexible and suitable for simple or technical disputes;
• The participatory procedure for case management, more formalised and designed for complex matters where a clear framework is indispensable.

This dual approach provides genuine flexibility and allows litigants’ diverse needs to be met, whether the dispute concerns a straightforward contractual claim or a major economic conflict.

Strengthened ADR mechanisms: the “multi-door” justice system

The guiding role entrusted to the judge

The decree redefines the judge’s mission: no longer merely an arbiter who renders a decision, the judge now assumes the role of procedural guide, steering the parties towards the dispute resolution method best suited to their case. This approach is inspired by “multi-door justice” models already developed in other countries, where the judge offers several settlement options: judicial proceedings, mediation, conciliation, or participatory procedure.

This logic personalises the judicial response. A dispute between shareholders, a consumer conflict, or an intellectual property infringement do not necessarily call for the same solution. The judge thus becomes a pivotal actor, ensuring the most appropriate orientation.

The mediation order and its sanctions

One striking innovation is that the judge may now order the parties to meet with a mediator. This does not mean forcing them to reach an agreement, but requiring them at least to explore the possibility.

• If the parties participate: they remain free to accept or reject an agreement, but they will have had the opportunity to engage in dialogue within a secure framework.
• If they refuse without legitimate grounds: they risk a civil fine of up to €10,000.

This sanction, unprecedented in French procedure, clearly demonstrates the determination to entrench amicable settlement in legal practice.

In this context, Dreyfus & Associés positions itself as a trusted partner, capable of intervening in the amicable procedures encouraged by the decree.

As judicial experts, we are regularly appointed by courts and parties to assist and secure amicable procedures, making us a preferred partner for efficiently resolving disputes.

Recodification for greater clarity and legal certainty

A unified and accessible body of rules

Prior to this reform, provisions on ADR were scattered across various chapters of the French Code of Civil Procedure, sometimes difficult for practitioners to locate. The decree now consolidates these rules into a single title, creating a coherent and accessible framework.

This codification effort improves access to the law and strengthens legal certainty. Lawyers, judges, and businesses now enjoy better visibility to anticipate their procedural strategies.

Practical implications for businesses and lawyers

For businesses, the reform offers tangible benefits:

• greater control over timelines,
• reduced procedural costs,
• enhanced opportunities to preserve commercial relationships through balanced agreements.

In the field of intellectual property, for instance, a company may resolve a dispute over the use of a domain name through supervised mediation rather than lengthy court proceedings.

For lawyers and experts, the role is profoundly reshaped: it now involves not only defending rights, but also designing and securing amicable solutions.

Conclusion: towards a lasting culture of amicable settlement

The Decree of 18 July 2025 heralds a profound cultural shift in French law. Amicable settlement is becoming the primary pathway, with litigation the last resort. This evolution promotes faster, more flexible, and often more suitable resolutions for the parties’ interests.

Dreyfus & Associés stands by businesses and stakeholders to implement these new rules, bringing our expertise in amicable and judicial dispute resolution to ensure the best outcome for your disputes.

Dreyfus & Associés operates in partnership with a global network of lawyers specialising in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

Does mediation become mandatory?
No, but the judge may order the parties to meet with a mediator, and may sanction unjustified refusal with a fine.

What are the advantages for businesses?
Shorter timelines, better-controlled costs, and solutions more in line with economic realities.

What are the sanctions for refusing amicable settlement?
A civil fine of up to €10,000, imposed by the judge.

How does this decree affect intellectual property?
Disputes concerning trademarks, patents, or domain names may now be resolved more efficiently through mediation or conciliation.

Why speak of a “multi-door justice system”?
Because the judge directs the parties towards several possible resolution mechanisms, depending on the nature of the dispute: conventional litigation, mediation, conciliation, or participatory procedure.