Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
Contact

Author rights

Fragrance and Intellectual Property: which protection?

Written by Dreyfus27/07/2021

 Fragrance is nowadays a very important economic interest whether in art, luxury or marketing industry.

Faced with such interests, how does intellectual property try to protect it

 

The olfactory work: an intellectual work bearing the mind of the author?

 

The Intellectual Property Code aims, in a non-exhaustive way, the traditional forms of artistic expression (literary, graphic, musical creation, etc.), as long as they satisfy the conditions of originality and tangible form introduced by French law.

Beyond these traditional forms of artworks, case law studied a certain number of creations to determine whether they could be qualified as “intellectual work», such as recipes for example. Among them, olfactory work has been the subject of many discussions. In a world where materiality is omniscient, the fragrance tries, not without difficulty, to find a place in the “Panthéon des œuvres d’art”.

According to perfumers and other “aficionados”, fragrance is an art. However, the French Court de Cassation does not share the same opinion, remaining recalcitrant to the idea of elevating it to the rank of intellectual work and consequently, to grant the perfumer the author status.

Perfume fades, but this should not systematically exclude it from the copyright sphere. Indeed, the fragrance is by nature fluctuating, perishable. Yet, intellectual property does not, as a matter of principle, exclude ephemeral works from copyright protection.

The French Cour de Cassation assumes that the fragrance of a perfume which proceeds from the simple implementation of know-how, does not constitute within the meaning of articles L112-1 and L112-2 of Intellectual Property Code a creation of an expression form which can benefit from the copyright.

In other words, the Court assimilates this process of perfume creation to a simple implementation of a know-how, not protectable by French copyright, and rejects the identification of a form of creation through the sense of smell.

By taking this position, the French Cour de Cassation met with resistance from trial judges and doctrine (TGI Bobigny, 28 nov. 2006 ; CA Paris, 14 fevr. 2007 ; CA Aix-en-Provence, 10 dec. 2010).

Several judgments, on the contrary considered the fragrance as an olfactory form of creation whose originality cannot be denied. The judges also considered the fragrance originality through the novelty of its smell, the association of its scents. Faced with this craze, the Cour de Cassation reviewed its position on the matter but without opening the door to the protection for olfactory creations, considering that: copyright protects creations in their sensitive form, as long as it is identifiable with sufficient precision to allow its communication (Cass. Com., 10 déc. 2013, n° 11-19872).

The protection of fragrances by copyright remains a controversial debate. Only a reversal of case law could settle the issue in favour of perfumers, a position more than expected given the increasingly difficult protection of manufacturing secrets.

Today, it is only on the grounds of parasitism and unfair competition that the perfumer can rely on in case of unauthorized reproduction of the fragrance, as shown by the Lancôme decision. However, those grounds remain less advantageous than the infringement action, as it will be up to the plaintiff to prove the existence of a fault.

 

 

The fragrance: a protection by trademark law?

 

In the scope of industrial property, the fragrance can be apprehended and protected as a trademark.

Indeed, a fragrance can be registered as an olfactory trademark before the Intellectual Property French Office (INPI). Since olfactory memories are the longest to last, according to most scientists, more and more companies want to awaken this sense for the consumer by associating a pleasant smell with their products.

For a long time, this registration of an olfactory trademark was a problem since it could not be represented graphically. Since March 23, 2016, the “Trademark Package” removed this requirement in favour of the olfactory trademark.

Henceforth, the trademark may be protected as soon as it can be represented in any appropriate form through available technology. However, in practice, the registration of olfactive trademarks remains unusual because of its complexity.

Even if the graphic representation required has been deleted, it is still complex to represent the essence of a smell – a chemical formula cannot characterize a perfume.  Furthermore, the trademark must be sufficiently distinctive to allow the consumer to identify the commercial origin of the goods and services covered by the smell; distinctiveness still difficult to demonstrate.

In parallel with trademark law, patent law can also be used to protect a smell, provided that it is new, industrially applicable and provides a solution to a concrete problem; conditions that are not necessarily easier to meet.

 

To conclude, fragrance protection is subject to many debates and difficulties. However, it is not impossible and some legal actors do not cease to claim this protection.

The importance of the olfactory cognitive memory, or the complexity and originality of the creation process, are the keywords defending the fragrance, subject of great legal attention.

 

 

SEE ALSO…

 

♦How to protect store layout – Visual Merchandising with Intellectual Property law? 

Read More

How to develop a reliable and flexible compliance strategy for intellectual property professionals?

Written by Dreyfus13/04/2021

With the rise of the digital age, setting up a reliable and effective compliance strategy as well as mobilizing the skills of professionals have become key factors in the company’s performance, particularly in the field of intellectual property. With the rise of the digital age, setting up a reliable and effective compliance strategy as well as mobilizing the skills of professionals have become key factors in the company’s performance, particularly in the field of ​​intellectual property.

From the outset, it seems important to remember that compliance includes all the processes intended to ensure that a company, its managers and its employees comply with the legal and ethical standards applicable to them.

FromLAW No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life.  on anti-corruption measures to the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (GDPR) of April 27, 2016, and including the duty of vigilance of parent companies and ordering companies (law of March 27, 2017) or the prevention of cyber risk (implementing decree of May 25, 2018 of the NIS directive), an undeniable operational impact on companies and their managers can be observed.

Likewise, the challenges and risks of intellectual property have increased in the virtual world. Domain names as well as social networks are likely to be the targets of multiple attacks.

The key challenges of compliance with regards to intellectual property risks (I) raise questions both about the practical consequences of compliance in all aspects of intellectual property the role of the “compliance officer” in this framework (II) and the role of the “compliance officer” in this framework (III).

The challenges of intellectual property compliance

The environment as well as legal decisions revolve around the long-term development of the company and justify the establishment of real legal engineering within companies whose intellectual property is decisive. This is the key challenge of compliance, which is both a framework for thinking and a method of solving problems, involving a large number of tools and components oriented by company strategy.

Legal, regulatory and fiscal constraints are increasingly stringent and make companies bear increased responsibility in case of negligence, or even simple inaction. In particular, the regulatory framework sets out increased requirements regarding the protection of consumers and personal data.

In the field of intellectual property, domain names are key assets to contemplate when analyzing the risks and drafting compliance plans. While they are a major asset, essential to the very functioning of the business (for example, for e-mail servers, they are also risk vectors: phishing, fraud, identity theft, forged e-mail …

Online fraud can lead to loss of turnover, endangerment of consumers, and if so, risks of civil or criminal liabilities of directors for non-compliance with enforceable laws and regulations. impact the stock market price, thus causing loss of customers.

It is therefore very important to put in place the appropriate strategies to anticipate dangers, react effectively in the event of a breach and ultimately protect the company.

The practical consequences of compliance in all aspects of intellectual and digital property

Compliance has an immediate impact on all aspects of intellectual property. Also, while the legislation is more and more restrictive for companies and intellectual property professionals, compliance requirements are reinforced. How to bring your company into compliance with the laws? What are the risks of not including the Internet in your compliance plan?

Beyond its legal meaning of compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, Codes or even directives, compliance aims to protect the company and intellectual property professionals against any non-compliance with internal and external standards and its values. Intellectual property frauds are growing and becoming increasingly complex in the digital era, which requires taking action to mitigate risks for the company business, including in terms of compliance. Its objective is to avoid adverse consequences for the company and its managers, both financial and civil or criminal liability, or damage to image and reputation. It is ultimately part of a desire for lasting growth in all aspects of intellectual property, both in France and internationally.

To cope with these new standards, companies must put in place a governance policy capable of minimizing their exposure to risk vis-à-vis their customers, their shareholders, but also regulatory authorities.

To begin with, it is essential to identify the risks through the relevant audits.

Then, it is important to assess those risks and map them. The risk management policy shall be defined accordingly.

In particular, a policy for the management of Intellectual Property related risks calls for a virtually systematic surveillance system of trademarks among domain names.

 

The role of the “compliance officer”

The compliance officer must protect the company from any risk of non-compliance, and therefore ensure that the organization adopts good conduct in business practice, respects the rules of ethics and finally, complies with the various laws, regulations, or even European directives. It must therefore undertake a proactive approach, organize and implement the means necessary to comply with the regulations.

Likewise, it is important to anticipate risks: once they have been defined and supervised, the mission of the compliance officer being to protect the group and its reputation, he will have to analyze the rules and standards according to the context, the activity, and the business sector.

According to a study “Who are compliance professionals?” published on March 27, 2019 and carried out by the firm Fed Legal, 92% of compliance officers have a legal background. They are operational professionals who have a strategic vision as well as a multiplicity of soft skills, in particular an ability to persuade and an interest for teaching. In addition, 60% of compliance officers belong to legal services in which there are many recruitments, both in large and small companies.

When a company is questioned, the consequences are at the same time financial, commercial and human: the company reputation will suffer greatly. The compliance officer thus takes care of protecting his company from the financial, legal and reputational risks that it  incurs in the event that it does not comply with laws, regulations, conventions, or quite simply a certain code of ethics or professional conduct.

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world.  Please feel free to contact us.

 

Read More

The impact of counterfeiting on consumers and businesses

Written by Dreyfus23/12/2020

 Published in June 2020, EUIPO’s “2020 Status on IPR Infringement” report shows that e-commerce has fostered the phenomenon of counterfeiting. The majority of counterfeit products come from Asia. These products are reconditionned in smaller boxes in countries such as Albania, Ukraine or Morocco.

The Covid-19 pandemic has not diminished this trend. On the contrary, the online shopping has increased the trend as stated in the “2020 Consumer Buying Behavior Report” of the company Intelligence Node tracing consumer’s behaviour.

Due to the forced closure of stores, consumers increased their online purchases. Thus, the counterfeiting phenomenon expanded, as well. According to this report, most consumers are attracted by a cheaper price, but they are completely unaware that they are buying a counterfeit product.

The report shows that:

– More than 50% of internet buyers search Google, Amazon and other marketplaces before buying. They look for the product description, features, price and possible discounts.

This is what can lead them to choose websites promoting counterfeit products, since:

– 70% of buyers opt for counterfeiting for price reasons.

– 82% of the buyers had indicated that they would continue to buy online even when the stores reopen.

In addition, a survey published by the French consumer association UFC- Que Choisir, on October 22nd, 2020, showed that online frauds, on an online purchase, are not always reimbursed by banks. Only one out of three frauds per year was reimbursed last year. The bank generally blamed the consumer for negligence.

The new DSP2 Directive (European Payment Services Directive 2nd version) requires that the transaction must be confirmed by the bank through a “strong authentication” system, when making an online purchase. The French authorities have given a deadline for the first quarter of 2021 for all the banks to be compliant.

In light of these elements, companies must actively protect their intellectual property rights, including property on the Internet, to avoid the drop in sales and the loss of customers.  Indeed, it is known that consumers who are victims of a scam will tend to turn away from the company whose products or services have been counterfeited.

An effective defence of the brand on the Internet is carried out through a strategy that includes prior searches and surveillance. The prior search provides a snapshot of the current situation of the trademark on the Internet (existing infringements, potential prior art in certain countries, etc.). The surveillance allows the detection of all domain name registrations reproducing or imitating the trademark, from the moment the surveillance is set up. It keeps in check any potential infringement as soon as it is detected.

Read More

Audiovisual works: the protection of program titles by trademark law

Written by Dreyfus02/09/2019

Companies which specialise in the audiovisual sector often require protection for their program titles through trademark law. If granted, this protection obviously offers considerable advantages for the company, but it is necessary to take into consideration some limits to it.

 

  • The advantages of trademark protection

First, the term of protection of a title by trademark law. Trademark law initially grants protection for 10 years, but this term is renewable indefinitely (Art L712-1 CPI). Thus, provided the owner submits a renewal application within the time limit, the trademark can be protected indefinitely. Copyright, on the other hand, can grant protection up to 70 years after the death of the author of the work, but the ‘guarantees’ of protection may be less obvious than trademark law because there is no register of copyright.

On the other hand, while copyright imposes a condition of originality (Art.L711-2 CPI), trademark law requires a distinctive character (Art L711-2 CPI). Thus, if the title of TV show or audiovisual program is distinctive and acts as an indicator of origin, it may be protected. In contrast, for copyright, it is necessary to prove originality, which is more difficult to prove. Since copyright is not subject to registration, the condition of originality must always be demonstrated in the course of a dispute. Thus, copyright protection is never certain.

 

A title may be protected by trademark law if it does not directly designate the goods and services for which registration is sought. Thus, if the title is arbitrary, there is nothing to prevent the title from benefiting from this protection. Finally, it should be borne in mind that trademark protection is not an impediment to copyright protection; it is thus possible to combine both protections.

 

  • The limits of trademark protection

 

Some limitations to the protection of audiovisual programs’ titles by trademark law should nevertheless be noted. The protection conferred by trademark law grants a monopoly on the use of the registered terms (Art L-713-1 CPI) and therefore the right to oppose use by third parties. However, in order to do so, it is necessary to prove :

 

  • The use of the sign by a third party “as a trademark”

 

First, it must be proven that the use of the title by a third party was “as a trademark”. To illustrate this concept, we can refer to the judgment rendered about the series “Le Bureau des Légendes”. In this case, the Paris Court of First Instance (TGI) dismissed the infringement action brought against a book, using the title, devoted to the study of the series. The purpose here was not to offer goods and services designated in the registration, but simply to refer to the series as such (TGI Paris, réf., April 16, 2018, n°18/53176). Use as a trademark would have been in the context of the sale of derivative products in connection with the series.

 

  • A commercial use of the sign

 

Secondly, in order to oppose the use of a sign, the owner must provide proof of commercial use. This means that it is not sufficient to prove merely a reference to the title. The use must take place in the course of business and not only for illustrative purposes. There must be a genuine commercial link between the sign and the use made by a third party.

 

  • A risk of confusion in the mind of the public

 

Finally, the risk of confusion in the public mind must be shown. The use of the sign must raise doubts as to the origin of the goods and services offered. A trademark is intended to guarantee in particular the origin of the goods and service. Thus, the use of the sign by a third party must infringe this guarantee of origin, severing the direct link between the sign and its owner.

 

For instance, the judges considered that there was no likelihood of confusion between Canal+’s trademark “LE ZAPPING” and the trademark “LE Z#PPING DE LA TELE”. In view of the evidence provided, and the overall impression, there was no likelihood of confusion. The phonetic and visual differences of the two signs were sufficient to eliminate this risk (CA Versailles, 12th ch., July 3, 2018, n°18/02091).

 

However, the principle of speciality of the trademark may be used against  the owner of a trademark. Since a trademark is registered for specific categories of goods or services, the owner can only oppose the use of the sign for identical or similar goods or services. Thus, if a sign is used for a completely different area of activities, the owner will not be able to oppose this use of the sign. This was the case for Canal +, concerning its mark “LE ZAPPING”. The notoriety of this brand was certainly recognized by the Court, but only in the field of television broadcasts. Thus, it was not possible for Canal + to oppose the filing of a similar trademark for other categories of goods and services than those designated in registration of the trademark “LE ZAPPING”.

 

  • Conclusion

 

Trademark law grants additional protection to a title of an audiovisual program. It complements the protection that copyright can grant, in a more certain way through the requirement of registration. The point of filing a sign representing the title of an audiovisual work is therefore to acquire double protection, on both grounds. Admittedly, the conditions to be met in order to be able to bring an infringement action under trademark law may be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, trademark law offers more means of action, and therefore of compensation for damage in the event of unjustified use by third parties.

Dreyfus law firm, expert in trademark law, will assist you in the management of your trademark portfolio.

Read More

Conflict between trademark and plant variety

Written by Dreyfus07/08/2019

In the decision of June 18, 2019, the General Court of Justice of the European Union applied Article 7, paragraph 1, m) of Regulation No. 2017/1001, which prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist of “an earlier plant variety denomination registered in accordance with Union legislation” or “or reproduce in their essential elements, an earlier plant variety denomination”.

 

In this case, the German company Kordes filed an application for the European trademark “KORDES’ ROSE MONIQUE” in Class 31 for the following description of goods: “Roses and rose bushes as well as products facilitating the multiplication of roses”.  However, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) refused the registration of the trademark in question because it is composed of the term “MONIQUE”, corresponding the variety denomination “MONIQUE” registered in the Dutch register of plant variety protection.

 

 

To do so, the EUIPO must rely on the fact that the plant variety denomination “MONIQUE” is reproduced in the same way in the trademark applied for, and also the fact that this term is an essential element of the trademark.

 

Kordes appealed to the General Court of the European Union to reverse the EUIPO’s decision. In this respect, the company argued that the term “MONIQUE” cannot be considered as an “essential element”.  In addition, the company argued that the public would perceive the trademark as an indicator of roses of the “Monique” variety commercialized by the company Kordes.

 

The Court held that the distinctive and dominant element of the mark KORDES’ ROSE MONIQUE is the element “KORDES”, placed at the beginning, this word  is the essential element and the indicator of the source of origin. Accordingly, the Court considered that the variety denomination “Monique” cannot constitute an “essential element” of the trademark.

 

Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the EUIPO refusing the registration of the trade mark KORDES’ ROSE MONIQUE.

Read More

US : A copyright registration is required prior to filing a copyright infringement suit

Written by Dreyfus29/05/2019

The U.S. Supreme Court held on March 4, 2019 on a long-debated question. In “Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC” the Court decided that the copyright owner of a work created in the United States must first have registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office « Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com , LLC » du 4 mars 2019.

In this case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation, an online news producer, had granted copyright licenses on some of its content to Wall-Street.com, a news website. The license agreement required that the licensee delete any item produced by Fourth Estate after the license had expired, which Wall-Street.com refused to do. Therefore, Fourth Estate filed a copyright infringement suit against Wall-Street.com., which in response requested dismissal of the action, claiming that Fourth Estate could not take legal action before the Copyright Office had followed up on its application for registration. The district court granted this motion and the Court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Fourth Estate asked the United States Supreme Court to review the case, and its petition for certiorari was granted.

The debate focused on the interpretation of section 411 (a) of the Copyright Act (1976). This article states that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title”.

The question was whether, in order to bring an infringement action, it was sufficient to have filed an application for registration, payed the fee, and provided copies of the work, or if the Copyright Office had to have already granted the application for registration. The Supreme Court held that the fact that registration “has been made” means that the Copyright Office has registered the copyright or has definitively refused to register it, after having examined the duly filed application. This judgment therefore highlights the importance of the registration procedure before the Copyright Office.

In this respect, we recommend applying for copyright registration as soon as possible. Indeed, an earlier registration offers important advantages for right’s owners. Indeed, if the registration is made within five years of the publication of the work, it has probative value. If the registration is made within three months of the publication of the work, a right’s holder may be granted statutory damages and attorney’s fees, not merely damages. In addition, once registration has been completed, the copyright owner may object to the importation of counterfeit works into the United States.

Therefore, the right to file an infringement suit to protect rights is only one of the advantages granted by the Copyright Act to copyrights holders. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, copyright owners must now pay close attention to the Copyright Office’s examination delays. It takes approximately seven months to examine an application. Exceptionally, an accelerated procedure, called “special handling”, allows the Office to rule within five working days. However, this accelerated procedure carries higher fees. Therefore, it is in the holder’s interest to anticipate having to defend his rights. The earlier the application for registration is filed, the more likely the applicant will be able to defend his rights by filing a copyright infringement suit.

Under section 411 of the Copyright Act, if registration is refused, the applicant may nevertheless file an infringement action if a notice to that effect is sent to the Copyright Office, along with a copy of the complaint. The Office can choose within sixty days to become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim. . A right’s holder can thus take legal action even if the absence of registration makes his situation more precarious.

In conclusion, we note that it is in the best interests of rights holders in the U.S. to register their copyrights. Furthermore, despite the United States’ accession to the 1886 Berne Convention in 1989, this text is not directly applicable in U.S. law, under the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. As a result, rights holders from a country party to the Berne Convention, such as France, have to register their rights with the Copyright Office in order to be able to invoke all the rights conferred by American copyright law. This registration is particularly recommended if the owner wishes to exploit his work through licensing agreements (e.g. software), or if the work is to be distributed online (e.g. music).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Read More
  • 1
  • 2
Contact
Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin

© 2024 Dreyfus – Created by Agence Peach