company Archives

What Are the Pitfalls of Not Having IP Protection?

Written by Dreyfus10/03/2023

Intellectual property (IP) is a valuable asset that can help businesses grow and protect their investments. Without adequate IP protection, businesses are vulnerable to having their ideas and inventions stolen or copied without any legal recourse. This article will discuss the pitfalls of not having IP protection in place and the importance of having it.

The first major pitfall of not having IP protection is that your ideas and inventions are open to theft or copying by someone else. Without a registered trademark or patent, anyone can use your ideas or inventions and claim them as their own. This could mean that someone else is profiting off of your hard work and creativity, while you receive nothing in return.

Additionally, if your ideas or inventions are widely stolen or copied, it can hurt your reputation as an innovator and make it difficult to differentiate yourself from the competition. Another pitfall of not having IP protection is that you may be unable to stop others from using your ideas or inventions. If you don’t have a registered trademark or patent, you can’t legally stop others from using your ideas or inventions without your permission.

This means that anyone can take your ideas and sell them, or use them as part of their own product or service, without your consent. Finally, not having IP protection can also lead to costly legal disputes. If someone does use your ideas or inventions without your permission, you may need to take legal action in order to stop them. This can be a costly and time-consuming process, and you may be unable to recoup any of the money or effort you lost due to the infringement.

In conclusion, it’s important to have IP protection in place in order to protect your ideas and inventions. Without IP protection, you may be vulnerable to theft or copying of your ideas or inventions, unable to legally stop others from using them, and may have to take legal action in order to protect your rights.

We offer our clients a dedicated and unique experience of expertise that is necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets. We will also endeavor to keep you informed and up-to-date about intellectual property and digital economic issues through our articles and newsletters written by the Dreyfus Legal Team.

Written by Dreyfus06/07/2021

Following the UDRP ‘s new gTLD program, new Rights Protection Review Mechanisms (RPM) have been implemented to protect trademark holders, such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) procedure.

ICANN has now decided to address changes suggested by trademark holders and intellectual property experts regarding the UDRP. For instance, one of these suggestions is that a domain name should be considered abusive if it is registered OR if it is used in bad faith, instead of requiring that both these conditions are met. The idea is to lighten the burden of proof on the rights owner to take into account a more up-to-date reality. Another suggestion is to provide for an accelerated procedure in case of abusive conduct and to get a decision more rapidly if the defendant fails to respond to the complaint.

It has also been proposed to provide for a presumption of bad faith if the registrant has lost three UDRP complaints and to require any repeat offender to pay a response fee to defend the case. The central issue at this stage of the study is to understand the extent to which the UDRP principles should be changed in favour of trademark owners, while knowingt hat it may weaken the UDRP principles.

Sources:

Overview: The Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Review https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/rpm

Phase: 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process :

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-initial-report-2020-03-18-en

Written by Dreyfus20/05/2021

The Copyright Directive n° 2019/790 of April 17, 2019 is a milestone in strengthening the protection for authors and performers. The provisions of the directive regarding contracts in the field of literary and artistic property generally tend to rebalance the legal relationship between contractors, to the benefit of creators. This is notably reflected in the rules on contract chains.

A. The European classifications of contract chains in the field of copyright law

The European legislator specifies the chains of contracts that are subject to the new regulation.

1. Primary contracts: Licenses and transfer of rights

As regards primary contracts, Article 18(1) of the Directive distinguishes between licenses and transfer of rights.

These provisions thus implicitly rely on a criterion, which looks at whether there is a transfer of ownership or not, and which is used in French law to distinguish between assignments and licenses, to classify contracts in the field of literary and artistic property. So far, this aspect was not clearly stated in the intellectual property code.

In other words, the assignment is a transfer of ownership whereas the license confers only an exploitation right: the assignment is therefore always exclusive whereas the license is not necessarily exclusive; the assignment includes, in particular, a transfer of ownership of the infringement action, which is not the case in a license.

2. Secondary contracts: sub-licenses, licenses and subassignments

When the primary contract is a license, the secondary contract is a sub-license, by virtue of Article 19 of the Directive.

Where the first contract of the chain consists in a transfer of ownership, the second contract will be, depending on the case, assimilated to either a licensing contract (if its object is to confer an exploitation right) or to a sub-assignment contract (if another transfer of ownership is completed).

B. Increased protection of creators in contractual matters

The new European provisions outline a legal regime that strongly protects creators in contract chains, and thus substantially reform the case law of the Court of Cassation on these issues.

1. Prior to the enactment of the directive, limited protection for authors in chains of contracts

In French law, many specific provisions in the field of literary and artistic property aim at protecting the author in his/her contractual relations, especially the rules concerning the formal requirements of authors’ contracts. Yet, the protection of the author beyond the first contract remained rather limited.

Indeed, the intellectual property code does not specifically regulate contract chains. In a Perrier decision dated October 13, 1993, the French Supreme Court distinguished between contracts concluded with authors and contracts concluded between operators, considering that the latter operators were not subject to the provisions of the intellectual property code. Thus, the obligations of sub-operators towards authors were limited.

For instance, an obligation of transparency towards authors had already been enacted, but it was very limited, and only concerned distributors of long cinematographic works and audiovisual works created thanks to funding from the National Center for Cinema and the Moving Image (articles L213-28 and L251-5 of the Cinema and the Moving Image Code).

Similarly, the principle of a proportional remuneration of authors by sub-operators was interpreted quite restrictively, and only applied to audiovisual works, according to rulings of the French Supreme Court dated July 16, 1998, and May 29, 2013.

2. The benefits of the Copyright Directive for authors and performers

The Directive changes the old framework and extends the protection of creators in contractual matters.

From now on, Article 19 of the European Union directive states an obligation of transparency for sub-operators towards authors and performers, and grants authors and performers a direct right of action against sub-operators who would not comply with their obligation.

Moreover, Article 18 generalizes the principle of appropriate and proportional remuneration by the sub-operator to authors and performers to all fields of literary and artistic property.

Finally, Article 20(1) establishes an adjustment mechanism together with a direct right of action for authors or performers against the party with whom they have concluded a contract for the exploitation of rights or against their successors. This mechanism is designed to provide for an additional remuneration when the remuneration initially agreed upon proves to be unreasonably low compared to the total income subsequently derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.

The European directive therefore extends the regulation of contract chains in the field of literary and artistic property, while strengthening the protection of creators.

Article 34 of Law n°2020-1508 of December 3, 2020 authorizes the French government to enact, by ordinance, any law aimed at ensuring the transposition of articles 17 to 23 of this directive.

Written by Dreyfus18/05/2021

(OMPI, Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation, 23 février 2021, affaire n° D2020-3322, Netflix Inc. c. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Siddharth Sethi)

Avons-nous encore besoin d’introduire Netflix ? Cette plateforme proposant des services de streaming vidéo compte 195 millions de membres dans plus de 190 pays et semble être connue dans le monde entier. Pourtant, certaines personnes tentent de se soustraire à cette notoriété pour tenter de se construire une légitimité artificielle et justifier l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine .

En effet, alors que la société Netflix détient de nombreux enregistrements dans le monde pour le signe « NETFLIX » en tant que marque , la société a détecté l’enregistrement du nom de domaine <netflix.store> . En conséquence, elle a déposé une plainte auprès du Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation de l’OMPI pour obtenir son transfert.

Le nom de domaine, enregistré le 3 septembre 2017, pointe vers une page qui présente une animation composée d’un effet d’éclatement de couleur et se termine par un écran de couleur vierge.
Le titulaire soutient que le nom de domaine ne reproduit pas la marque NETFLIX mais est plutôt composé de deux termes , “net” et “flix”. Or, comme prévu, l’expert considère que la marque NETFLIX est reproduite à l’identique dans le nom de domaine.
L’expert considère que si l’utilisation du nom de domaine n’est pas commerciale, son enregistrement ne serait pas non plus considéré comme légitime. En effet, le site mis en place vise à légitimer l’enregistrement afin de dissimuler l’intention de vendre le nom de domaine au Plaignant. Ni la reproduction de la marque NETFLIX dans le nom de domaine litigieux, ni l’extension <.store> n’ont de sens si le projet devait effectivement être non commercial.

En conséquence, il estime que l’intimé n’a aucun droit ou intérêt légitime sur le nom de domaine .
Par ailleurs, l’expert constate que le Défendeur connaissait le Plaignant et son activité et prévoyait qu’en achetant le nom de domaine, il serait en mesure de le revendre au Plaignant avec un bénéfice significatif. Cette stratégie a été partiellement couronnée de succès, car Netflix a fait une offre que l’intimée a refusée, essayant d’obtenir une somme considérablement plus élevée.

Or, l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine qui correspond à la marque d’un Plaignant avec l’intention de le vendre au Plaignant lui-même , établit la mauvaise foi. L’expert précise que le titulaire « [n’aurait pu] raisonnablement penser qu’un tiers serait en mesure d’utiliser commercialement le Nom de domaine litigieux ». Il convient également de noter que l’intimé a tenté de faire croire à la personne qui l’a contacté qu’il avait reçu d’autres offres plus élevées. En effet, le représentant de Netflix, qui n’avait pas indiqué qu’il agissait pour Netflix, ce qui était un secret de polichinelle, avait proposé la somme de 2 000 USD, que le déclarant jugeait trop faible.

L’expert commente ce comportement récurrent de certains cybersquatteurs : « Peu importe que le Défendeur n’ait pas proposé activement à la vente le Nom de domaine litigieux. Il n’est pas rare que des déclarants opportunistes de noms de domaine incluant une marque tierce attendent d’être approchés, réalisant qu’une offre active de vente du nom de domaine peut faciliter un procès UDRP à leur encontre ».

En conséquence, l’expert conclut que le nom de domaine litigieux a été enregistré et est utilisé de mauvaise foi et ordonne ainsi son transfert au Plaignant.

Sauf dans les cas où un nom de domaine reproduisant une marque notoire telle que NETFLIX est utilisé à des fins de critique sans usage commercial, ou pour un usage commercial minimal, il est quasiment inconcevable d’imaginer qu’un tel nom de domaine ait pu être enregistré de bonne foi . Netflix savait évidemment qu’elle gagnerait le procès, mais a visiblement choisi d’essayer de négocier un rachat à l’amiable pour un budget légèrement inférieur à celui d’une procédure UDRP, si l’on compte les 1 500 USD d’honoraires et les honoraires d’avocat. Cette approche, si elle réussissait, aurait permis d’économiser du temps et de l’argent, mais la simple offre de rachat a pour effet d’encourager le cybersquattage.

Written by Dreyfus29/04/2021

UDRP While one generally refers to the “three criteria” of the UDRP (a trademark similar to the domain name; the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the defendant in the disputed domain name; and the bad faith of the registrant), it should be kept in mind that bad faith in UDRP matters has two aspects: the first is bad faith registration and the second is bad faith usage. Therefore, proving only one of these elements is insufficient even though it may be considered “fair” that a name used in bad faith should be transferred to the applicant.
In the present case, Great American Hotel Group, Inc. complained that its former vice-president retained the domain name <greatamericanhg.com> and changed the password of the account used to manage this name with the registrar.

It all started in 2011 when the applicant decided to adopt the name Great American Hotel Group. Its president at the time asked Mr. Greene, then vice-president of the company, to reserve the domain name <greatamericanhg.group>.
The latter did so, but – apparently without notifying his superior – reserved the domain name in his name instead of that of the company. He did, however, record the company’s postal address, and pay with the company card. In 2012, he hired an anonymity service to hide his data.

Since its registration, the name had been used for the company and Mr. Greene had always treated the domain name as part of the company’s assets.

However, following disagreements, Mr. Greene was suspended from office in 2015 and dismissed in 2016. In 2017, the name was renewed by the company’s technical teams even though Mr. Greene was no longer present. However, the latter subsequently changed the password so that the name could no longer be renewed by the company. The applicant’s counsel proceeded to send Mr. Greene a letter of formal notice, which remained unanswered, leading to the filing of a UDRP complaint.

The panellist acknowledged that the applicant had common law trademark rights through the use of the sign “Great American” and that the registrant did not have any legitimate rights or interest in the name as it was created for the applicant company.
He also acknowledged that the domain name was used by Mr. Greene in bad faith.

Nevertheless, the panellist was more sceptical regarding the issue of bad faith registration. Indeed, the name had been reserved by Mr. Greene at the request of the president of the applicant company, which, in principle, had, in fact, been a registration in good faith.

In order for registration by an employee to qualify as having been done in bad faith, the panellist specified that the employee must have, from the beginning, had “an intention to cause harm”. Therefore, the evaluation must be factual and done on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, Mr. Greene had registered the domain name in his own name. The panellist found that “this may be subject to questioning, and the fact that he did not mention the company does not constitute a good domain name management practice”, however, the president and the company seemed to be equally as uninterested in formalizing the reservation of the name.

For four years, until he was suspended from his functions, the registrant had always displayed conduct that demonstrated that he understood that the name belonged to the company. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that by reserving the name four years earlier, he had intended to compete with the applicant or to benefit from some type of tactical advantage against him.

Consequently, the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed as the registration in bad faith had not been established. Nevertheless, the panellist specified that the applicant could turn to other avenues to try to obtain relief.

The significance of this decision, in addition to highlighting the dual condition of bad faith, is that it reiterates the need to set up an internal naming charter to avoid any dispersion of assets, both in terms of trademarks and domain names.

Written by Dreyfus26/04/2021

“Intellectual property was viewed with passion – and in a style steeped in pre-Romanticism! – as “the most sacred, the most legitimate, the most unassailable […], the most personal of properties”; “The least likely to be contested, the one whose increase can neither hurt republican equality, nor overshadow freedom,” said Patrick Tafforeau in his book Intellectual Property Law published in 2017.

It should be borne in mind that intellectual property is protected by law. This protection is notably achieved through patents, copyright and trademark registrations. These intellectual property rights allow creators to obtain a certain form of recognition or even a financial advantage from their inventions, plant varieties or creations.

In this sense, paragraph 1 of article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that: “The author of a work of the mind enjoys on this work, by the sole fact of his creation, of an exclusive and intangible property right enforceable against all”.

In fact, the Internet has created tremendous opportunities for companies in terms of communicating their brand message. However, its global reach, openness, versatility and the fact that it is largely unregulated are all elements that have created fertile ground for trademark infringement such as counterfeiting.

For a long time, real world activity and Internet activity were separated. Today, the two worlds undeniably tend to come together. Trademark law is therefore very useful in defending yourself in the digital era. By appropriately balancing the interests of innovators with those of the general public, the intellectual property system aims to foster an environment conducive to the flourishing of creativity and innovation.

When you create a company or launch a product, know that it is recommended to protect your trademark (which can be the name of your company, a logo, numbers, letters, etc. …). This registration will protect your company from counterfeiting.

Once registered, the trademark is an industrial property title which gives you a monopoly of exploitation for a period of ten years, renewable indefinitely.

Registering your trademark gives you an exclusive right to a sign that distinguishes the products or services you offer from those of your competitors, which is a significant competitive advantage ! As such, your sign is protected for the categories of goods and services referred to in your trademark registration and in the territory for which said registration is accepted.

In this perspective, it is necessary to put in place a strategy for the protection of your brand as soon as possible. Before filing a trademark, it is important to make sure that it is available and that there is no owner of an earlier right to that trademark. You must therefore be the first to register this mark.

The reasons why trademark registration is becoming a necessity are multiplying in the face of the phenomenon of cybersquatting. Thus, owners of registered trademarks benefit from new advantages in the defense of their rights on the Internet.

First, it has become increasingly important to protect your brand on social media. Since 2009, Facebook has allowed its members to create usernames, easily accessible, but which can include brands. Prior to 2009, Facebook allowed registered trademark owners to identify their trademarks and prevent their use by other members.

Most social networks register user names on a “first come, first served” basis. In order to defend your rights, it is preferable to have a registered trademark in order to report a violation of trademark rights, according to the general conditions of use of social networks.

Secondly, the presence of a mark on the Internet also imposes its protection in referencing on search engines and in particular paid referencing. Through the AdWords system, Google allows advertisers to select keywords so that their ads will appear to Internet users after entering those words into a search. Conflicts arise when advertisers buy keywords that contain brands, but do not have rights to them.

Owning a trademark right then also becomes extremely useful in the fight against unfair practices.

Thirdly, the proliferation of new gTLD domain name extensions must also attract the attention of trademark owners. To date, more than 300 new gTLDs have been delegated, and gradually hundreds more will follow. Faced with the risk of conflicts with protected trademarks, a new tool is made available to trademark rights holders: The Trademark Clearinghouse. It is a centralized declarative database of registered trademarks. Once the trademark is registered, the holder benefits from the priority registration period for new gTLDs – Sunrise Period – and is notified when a third party wishes to register a domain name identical or similar to its trademark. The registrant of the disputed domain name is also informed that he may infringe trademark rights.

Finally, if a domain name reproducing or containing a trademark is registered, the trademark rights holder has the possibility of taking action against cybersquatters using dedicated extrajudicial procedures such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and the Uniform Domain Resolution Policy (UDRP). These dedicated procedures are only open to trademark holders.

It should be remembered that the business landscape has changed with the rise of the Internet and, in order to thwart the risks of intellectual property infringements on online markets, it is important that companies adapt their management of industrial property rights portfolio accordingly.

Nathalie Dreyfus – Industrial Property Attorney, Expert at the Paris Court of Appeal, Founder & Director of Cabinet Dreyfus in Paris – Dreyfus.fr

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Written by Dreyfus23/03/2021

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Nov. 24, 2020, case DRO2020-0007, NAOS c/ Bioderm Medical Center

The Bioderma brand has a world-wide reputation but was this reputation already established in Romania at the beginning of the years 2000? The Bioderm Medical Center, a clinic based in Romania, answers no to this question.

NAOS, owner of the Bioderma trademark, has detected the registration by the Centre Médical Bioderm of a domain name reproducing its trademark, namely <bioderma.ro>. However, said domain name is quite old as it has been registered on February 24, 2005.

On September 4, 2020, NAOS filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to obtain the transfer of this domain name. This complaint is based on an International trademark Bioderma, protected in Romania since 1997.

Nonetheless, the defendant claims to have used the sign Bioderma as its business name for several years, hence the registration of the domain name <bioderma.ro> and the subsequent change of its coporate name.
The expert in charge of the case is particularly thorough in its assessing whether the defendant has the legitimate interest and rights in the disputed domain name or not.
He considers that even if the latter produced a Kbis extract showing that its commercial name, in 2003, was indeed Bioderma, it is insufficient to prove a legitimate interest or rights on the domain name. The defendant should have brought evidence that it was commonly known by the Bioderma name.

The expert also notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive web page and therefore concludes that there was nobona fide use of the name in connection with an offer of goods and services and no legitimate non-commercial use of the name.
It is however on the ground of bad faith that the expert finally decides in favour of Bioderm Medical Center.
The latter notes that the International registration of the applicant’s Bioderma trademark is several years older than the disputed domain name and that this trademark is currently renowned. However, the evidence brought by the applicant are deemed insufficient to demonstrate the possible or actual knowledge of this trademark by the defendant in 2005, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

Indeed, although the earlier mark was established in the 70’s in France and was first registered in Romania in 1997, the first subsidiary of the applicant, established in Italy, only opened in 2001: the true starting point of the brand’s internationalization.
Yet, the defendant founded the company in 2003 and carried on its business under the name Bioderma until 2008.

From there, it is not possible to establish that it had targeted the company or its trademark to mislead or confuse Internet users. Moreover, the defendant did not conceal its identity and responded to the complaint, which shows good faith.

This decision is a reminder that it is essential to place oneself at the time of domain name registration in order to assess the aim of the registrant. Even if the prior trademark enjoys a world-wide reputation on the day of the complaint, the dive into the past is inevitable: it must be determined whether the defendant, located in a certain country, had knowledge of the rights or reputation of the trademark. In this case, the expert took into account, among other things, that the defendant used the commercial name “Bioderma” in 2005. Therefore, it is essential to investigate on the registrant and their situation at the time of registration of the domain name, here particularly old. To that end, seeking legal advice from an IP lawyer specialized in UDRP procedures is strongly recommended.

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

Written by Dreyfus24/02/2021

On November 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Paris, condemned Webedia, a company specialised in the management of Internet sites, for unfair competition towards the Bonpoint company.

Bonpoint is specialized in the manufacture and sale of high-end children’s clothing, marketing its discontinued products through online retailers of multi-brand clothing, including Yoox.com.

The Webedia company, for its part, run the marketplace shopoon.fr which is a guide for buying fashion and decoration items online putting Internet users in touch with e-commerce merchant sites. In particular, it offers products appearing on the site yoox.com.

So far so good. However, the Bonpoint company has found that 93% of the products of its brand displayed on the site shopoon.fr are unavailable for sale, and when the user clicks on these unavailable products, he is redirected to similar and competing products belonging to other brands.

The Court of Appeal of Paris considered that the presentation of products on the site shopoon.fr allowed the consumer to clearly distinguish available items from unavailable items. Consequently, this presentation was not likely to substantially alter the economic behavior of the normally informed and reasonably attentive consumer who, in case of unavailability of the desired branded product, would turn to articles of another brand.

Therefore, the Court ruled that Webedia had not committed deceptive marketing practices.

However, the Court reminds that if the Webedia company does not sell directly the articles which it presents on its site, it is nevertheless remunerated as soon as it puts forward the products of different sites and brands, in the event of unavailability of the initially sought-after product. It thus draws a financial advantage from the redirection of web users to these products.

Consequently, the judges held on this point that the Webedia company was guilty of unfair competition, by presenting on the site shopoon.fr 93% of articles of the Bonpoint company which it knew unavailable, and by “referring the web user to the possibility of seeing similar competing products“. They considered that the Webedia company had thus used the attraction force of the Bonpoint brand to generate traffic of web users oriented towards other products.

The Court thus ordered Webedia to pay Bonpoint the sum of 22,043 euros in damages, including 20,000 euros in compensation for moral prejudice and 2,043 euros for misappropriation of customers.

Written by Dreyfus22/02/2021

It is common for trademarks to be filed by individuals acting on behalf of a company in the process of creation.

The founder of the company is then the regular owner of the trademark until the company in question takes over the filing. Therefore, the founder may initiate proceedings, in the meantime, in case of trademark infringement.

But what happens if the company that was supposed to be created and, therefore, become the owner of the trademark, is never formed?

The French Supreme Court expressed its view in a decision dated October 14, 2020. Ms. T, who had registered the trademark “Dousè Péyi” in the name of the company in the process of being created Dousè Péyi, filed a lawsuit against the company Sérénade des saveurs (Cass. Comm. 14 Oct. 2020, No. 18-23-965 T.c/ Sté Sérénade des saveurs).

The dispute concerned the filing of the trademark “Doucè Péyi”, almost identical to the earlier trademark.

Following this application, Ms. T sued Sérénade des saveurs for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The applicant raised a motion to dismiss the action, based on the lack of interest of the founder of the company to act in defence of a trademark registered on behalf of a company which was not yet created (see Article 31 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

The company Sérénade des Saveurs claimed that Ms. T did not personally own the trademark. According to the defendant, since the company had never been created, Mrs. T should have recorded the change of ownership of the trademark at the INPI.

The first judges declared Ms. T’s action for infringement inadmissible for lack of interest in acting. The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision and stated that Ms. T “cannot claim ownership of this trademark in a personal capacity without having [recorded the change of ownership] on the National Trademark Register before initiating any action reserved to the owner of the trademark”. Otherwise, the change is unenforceable and any action in defence of the mark is therefore inadmissible.

Ms. T appealed to the Supreme Court and, rightly so, since the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that the Court of Appeal had violated Article L210-6, paragraph 2, of the French Commercial Code, which establishes a system of taking over acts performed on behalf of a company in the process of creation: “every person who acted on behalf of a company in the process of creation before it acquired legal personality shall be held jointly and indefinitely liable for the acts thus performed, unless the company, after having been duly formed and registered, takes over the commitments entered into. Such commitments are then deemed to have been entered into from the outset by the company”.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeal decision and affirmed that in the absence of legal personality, the founder of the company, who registered the trademark, is the owner of the trademark and therefore Ms. T could rightly file a trademark infringement suit.

This solution guarantees the legal security of project leaders. The creation of a company can, in fact, take time. During this time, several acts must be accomplished and the law acknowledges their retroactive effect.

Filing a trademark in the name of a company in the process of creation is an interesting practice to enhance the value of the trademark assets and protect them against third parties that may file a similar or identical trademark while the company is not yet formed.

However, case law in this area is not consistent and requires to be attentive to details when filing a trademark.

In order for the company to automatically become the owner of the trademark at the time of its registration, a statement of the acts performed on behalf of the company while it being created should be made, which will be annexed to the articles of association, and should mention the filing of the trademark, indicating that the company takes over the legal act of filing on its behalf.

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

Written by Dreyfus27/01/2021

Since the advent of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it has become really difficult to obtain information about the registrant of a domain name. This obviously complicates the dialogue between trademark and domain name holders.

ICANN has proposed a project to create a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD), which would allow standardized access to non-public data on domain name registrations.
The objective of the SSAD is to provide a predictable, transparent, efficient and accountable framework for access to non-public registration data. It must also be consistent with the GDPR.
However, the decision whether or not to grant requests would still belong to the registrars, as legal constraints on personal data may vary from country to country.

This project accelerated in August during Stage 2 of the policy development process, during which a final report was presented that provides 22 recommendations for the system.
The creation of this SSAD could, in the coming years, facilitate the fight against cybersquatting, which has been strongly impacted by the GDPR and WhoIs anonymization processes. It should be remembered that the next round of requests for domain name extensions should take place in 2023, bringing a whole new set of challenges in the fight against Internet attacks.

Source: LexisNexis, N°1 (January 2021)

Written by Dreyfus28/08/2020

Consumers are now demanding more privacy and security in t he processing of their personal data.

What are the challenges for the data controller?

There are several challenges for the data controll

er – i.e. the legal or natural person who determines the purposes and means of a processing operation – to overcome at different scales:

– information management: reducing the data collected by establishing a precise commercial context, and reducing the risks by taking care of the contracts;

– communication with suppliers: being able to find solutions and evaluate each other;

– monitoring of data processing: setting up mechanisms for reporting data breaches or threats concerning suppliers (for example, if Easyjet has had a data breach, the data controller, operating in the same business sector as the airline, if notified, can redirect its decisions.

What are the risk management methods?

A more effective risk management includes precise identification of suppliers, prior audits when integrating new suppliers, automation of evaluation and control processes, and risk prevention to protect data.

What about cookies?

They are used to collect data. Their presence is materialized by the banners you find on websites that ask for your consent to collect certain data.

In summary, there are 3 types of cookies:

– cookies strictly necessary for the operation of the site;

– cookies intended to improve the performance and functionality of the site;

– advertising cookies (which will soon disappear, Firefox has already put an end to them, and Google has announced that Chrome will no longer use them in 2021).

How do I collect online consent?

Remember that in France, consent must be free, specific, informed and unambiguous (GDPR).

Nevertheless, in order to collect consent, the user must understand what he is consenting to. He must receive clear information (purpose and duration of the use of cookies, list of third parties with whom the information is shared etc…) and the data controller must be particularly attentive to the layout of his banner.

What should be the role of the DPO (Data Protection Officer) in a modern company?

If the company promotes ethics, innovation, data, then the DPO has a key role: they shed light on data collection, and bring their vision on risks from an individual’s point of view.

In the past, their role was purely administrative, but today it is different, the DPO accompanies the company on a permanent basis, but they cannot guarantee compliance on their own: they have to expand a web within the organization (with the digital or marketing departments in particular) in order to promote the essential principles.

What changes are taking place within companies, in terms of GDPR awareness?

When GDPR came into force, programs were launc

hed to raise awareness of it, , and it was necessary to mobilize the entities and ensure they had good skills (setting up e-learning internally, for example).

Despite the existing similarities in legislation, what differences persist and what are the challenges that companies have to face in this respect?

There are technical differences (in terms of data retention time, each country has its obligations) and very important cultural differences, the way in which people in different countries deal with these subjects depends on their history. Consequently, it is difficult to find “golden rules” (= harmonized rules).

How can organizations benefit from their compliance efforts?

One way to recognize that companies have done their job properly is through certifications, such as HDS certification.

Dreyfus helps you to comply with these new legislations.

Written by Dreyfus17/07/2020

The judges of the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling on a referral from the Court of Cassation, adopted a strict approach to similarities between a figurative trademark and a later , semi-figurative trademark in a dispute between two companies specialized in ready-to-wear clothing.

The company Compagnie Financière de Californie (“Compagnie de Californie”), which specializes in street wear chic clothing, is the owner of the trademarks on the sign, in particular for clothing products.

In 2013, the company noted that International Sport Fashion, also active in the fashion industry, had registered and used a trademark that it believes to be similar to its own:

The signs in question have the shape of an eagle’s head, without detail, reproduced in black and white within a circle.

In order to obtain compensation for the damage it considers to have suffered, Compagnie de Californie brought an action for infringement.

After having been dismissed at first instance and on appeal, the company turned to the Court of Cassation, which referred the case back to the trial judges after partial cassation.

The referring Court of Appeal first compared the trademarks in question. Its analysis is rigorous, particularly from a conceptual standpoint: it considers that the trademark of Compagnie de Californie refers to “the dark side of the bird of prey while the other refers to the image of a much less aggressive bird” (certainly due to the presence of a closed beak).

The court points out, among other things, that visually, these birds’ heads are not facing the same direction and that one has the beak closed and the other open.

On the phonetic level, the court notes, unsurprisingly, that the mark at issue will be pronounced “Eagle Square” in reference to the verbal element it contains, which will not be the case for the earlier mark.

The court, therefore, considers that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks.

Next, it examines the question of the exploitation by International Sport Fashion of its mark for clothing products. The Court takes into account all possible elements such as the packaging which contains the goods. The name “EAGLE SQUARE” is affixed to the packaging; it, therefore, considers that there is no likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers.

It also states that the contested sign which appears by itself on some of the articles is each time bicoloured, “inducing a caesura in the sign”, which gives an overall impression, very different from the earlier mark.

The court, therefore, did not grant the applications of Compagnie de Californie.

Thus, with respect to figurative marks, it is necessary to meticulously estimate the chances of success of an infringement action, since great similarities are generally required to recognize the likelihood of confusion.

This case shows that even marks with a comparable style (presence of a bird in a circle, with only the head entirely painted black) can coexist in the market.

It is questionable whether the Court of Appeal would have taken a different approach had International Sport Fashion affixed the only black and white eagle head to its products. The question also arises as to whether the outcome might have been partially different had California Company also registered, as a trademark, its coloured eagle (which can be found in red on its official website https://www.compagniedecalifornie.com/).

Therefore, in addition to a detailed analysis of the chances of success before bringing an action, it is also necessary to protect the trademark as exploited, taking into account its variants, so as to benefit from the widest possible scope of protection.

Written by Dreyfus06/07/2020

CJEU – September 5, 2019

AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree c/. Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arriba,

It is possible to bring an actionbefore a national court with the purpose proving an infringement of the EU trademark in that Member State, even if the third party has advertised and marketed his goods in another Member State.

That is the answer given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the preliminary ruling question concerning the interpretation of Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of February 26, 2009 on the European Union trade mark.

That reference was made in the context of a dispute between the parties:

– The applicants : AMS Neve, a company founded in the United Kingdom, for manufacturing and marketing audio equipment, represented by its director Mr Crabtree. Barnett Waddingham Trustees “BW Trustees” is the trustee;

versus

– The defendants : Heritage Audio, a Spanish company also marketing audio equipment, represented by Mr Rodríguez Arribas

concerning an infringement action for alleged infringement of rights conferred, inter alia, by an European Union trade mark.

The applicants are the owners of the European Union trademark and of two trademarks registered in the United Kingdom.

Having discovered that Heritage Audio was marketing imitations of AMS Neve products bearing or referring to a sign identical or similar to the said EU and national trademarks and was advertising those products, they brought an action for infringement of an EU trade mark before the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court in the United Kingdom.

In order to prove the infringement in the United Kingdom, the applicants provided the documents in support of their action, including in particular the contents of Heritage Audio’s website and its Facebook and Twitter accounts, an invoice issued by Heritage Audio to an individual, resident in the United Kingdom.

Then, in order to prove the infringement in the European Union, they provided screen shots from that website showing offers for the sale of audio equipment bearing a sign identical or similar to the European Union trademark. They underlined the fact that these offers are in English and that a section entitled “where to buy” is available on the website, listing distributors in various countries. In addition, they argued that Heritage Audio accepts orders from any Member State of the European Union.

While the Court agreed to rule on the protection of national intellectual property rights, it found that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the infringement of the EU trade mark at issue.

The appellants appealed against that judgment to the United Kingdom Court of Appeal, which decided to enforce a stay on proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

– Does a national court of a Member State A have jurisdiction to rule on an action for infringement of the EU trademark on account of its advertising and marketing of goods carried out in Member State B?

– If so, what criteria should be taken into account in determining whether the company has taken active measures regarding the infringement?

The answers given by the CJEU are as follows:

– the plaintiff, depending on whether he chooses to bring the infringement action before the EU trademark court of the defendant’s domicile or before that of the territory in which the act of infringement was committed or threatened to be committed, determines the extent of the territorial jurisdiction of the court seized ;

o when the infringement action is based on Article 97(1), it shall cover acts of infringement committed on the territory of the Union (where the action is brought before the court of the defendant’s domicile or, if the defendant is not domiciled in the European Union, in the State in which he is professionally established);

o when it is based on paragraph 5 of the same Article, it shall be limited to acts of infringement committed or threatening to be committed within the territory of a single Member State, namely the Member State of the court seized ;

– in order to ensure that the acts of which the defendant is accused were committed in the EU , it is necessary to determine where the commercial content was actually made accessible to consumers and professionals for whom it was intended. Whether such advertising and offers subsequently had the effect of purchasing the defendant’s goods, is on the other hand, irrelevant.

In the present case, the advertisements and offers referred to by the applicants were aimed at consumers and/or professionals, in particular in the United Kingdom.

In those circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have the right to bring an infringement action against that third party before a EU trademark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom that advertising and those offers for sale are directed are located, notwithstanding that that third party took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.

This possibility of bringing an infringement action before any competent national court to rule on acts of infringement committed in any Member State is very useful in particular to optimise the costs of proceedings, depending on the national regulations. France, for example, offers irrefutable methods of collecting evidence, such as a bailiff’s report, to establish facts of infringement, at attractive prices.

Written by Dreyfus12/05/2020

Dear all,

Since Monday 11th of May and the end of the French quarantine, we are pleased to open the office to allow meetings with our clients to take place physically if it’s necessary.

We have organized a team rotation in our offices and continue to enable remote work.

We are naturally available to answer all your requests by email contact@dreyfus.fr or by phone +33 1 44 70 07 04.

See you soon!

Written by Dreyfus07/05/2020

Source: Bank Info Security, Feb. 11, 2020

The global health crisis caused by the coronavirus is a favorable context for phishing techniques. Indeed, many organized gangs of cybercriminals are pretending to be health organizations by using fake domain names. As a result, they send an e-mail pretending to be a health-related entity, in which they ask the recipient to click on a link and enter or confirm a login and password. For example, cybercriminals therefore send phishing e-mails containing domain names similar to those used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For example, cybersquatters have incorporated the domain name “cdc-gov.org” which is similar to the official domain name “cdc.gov”.
Thus, these malicious e-mails encourage users to click on a link that looks like it contains information related to the issues related to the coronavirus. In fact, Internet users are redirected to a fake website where they have to enter a username and password. In other cases, cybercriminals send phishing e-mails looking like they originate from the World Health Organization, inviting users to a link to download a document on security measures against the spread of the virus. Of course, this is not the case and users are redirected to a pop-up screen asking for a username and a password. It should be noted that some cybercriminals adopt a different tactic by posing as entities linked to the world of economics, such as shipping companies or manufacturing industries. The coronavirus crisis can have an impact that extends beyond health concerns. Hence, it is necessary to be doubly careful about the extension of these phishing campaigns, alert may be raised for example by e-mails containing numerous spelling mistakes.

Written by Dreyfus04/05/2020

The gTLD <.com> apparently occupies more than 40% of the domain name market share, according to statistics provided by the site www.domainnamestat.com. These results confirm that it is an unavoidable extension, especially because the <.com>, which addresses the whole world, is a strong rallying sign.

However, the negotiations in progress between ICANN and the <.com> registry, VeriSign, could lead to a modification of the approval on this extension, so that the <.com>’s price would increase by possibly 7% per year, from 2021 to 2024. In return for this right, VeriSign would pay $4 million to ICANN.

This negotiation is notably allowed by an amendment accepted by the American Department of Commerce, datedOctober 26, 2018, by which it was indicated that “in view of the more dynamic market of domain names, the Department considers it advisable to modify the cooperation agreement in order to provide flexibility in the prices related to the registration and renewal of domain names of the .com registry”.

If the price of <.com> increases, it will be relevant to see whether other TLDs recover some of its market shares, especially among the new gTLDs. If it seems unlikely that companies will abandon the names in <.com> that they already hold, newcomers to the market could possibly prefer other extensions.

Written by Dreyfus17/04/2020

The 2019 Finance Act harmonizes French and European tax rules in order to best promote the investment of patentable creations and inventions. We are talking about the French IP Box.

Thus, the taxation regime for the products of patents and similar industrial property rights is brought into line with OECD provisions.

While Irelandwas the first country to set up this system (1973), other countries followed suit, such as Belgium, China and, more recently, the United Kingdom (2013).

The principle allows companies to benefit from a tax advantage on their intellectual property assets with a tax rate that amount to 10% instead of 33% previously.

Eligible assets

The assets that are eligible for this plan are:

Patents and patentable inventions
Certificates of utility
Plant variety certificates
Copyrighted software

To be eligible, inventions must have been filed. Taking into account that the regime is open to software protected by copyright. It should also be added that this plan is applicable to annual net income calculated after deducting research and development expenses. The aim is to encourage research and development efforts in relation to the overall effect, i.e. in relation to all the investments that the company can make.

To be eligible for the reduction rate, the company will have to provide several elementsto establish its file such as:

Eligible assets
The rule for determining the protection of the proportion of net income taxable at a reduced rate
The method for allocating research and development expenses.

This makes it possible to monitor the company’s expenses and, above all, to justify the request for a reduction in the tax rate. It will be necessary to submit this file to the tax authorities under penalty of a 5% penalty.

The tax rate

The regime consists in deducting first the proceeds of sale and concession as well as research and development expenses and then, in a second step, calculating from this deduction the net result in order to obtain the net result of the assets on the basis of the Nexus ratio.

What is the Nexus ratio?

The idea is to limit “the preferential regime in proportion to the part of the expenditure relating to intellectual property. »

This is how the OECD defines this ratio. This is intended to sanction patents acquired and research and development costs subcontracted to affiliated companies. It should be noted that research and development costs in third party companies will not penalize the Nexus ratio. This ratio will be calculated on a cumulative expenditure basis.

Some consider this ratio a “not irrefutable presumption.”

Conclusion

The advantage of this regime is that it will encourage companies to their research and development in France and produce quality intellectual property assets that generate income.

Written by Dreyfus10/04/2020

The French company Adventure is specialized in the sale of paramotors. It owns the French semi-figurative trademark including the terms “adventure” and “paramotor” as well as the domain names “paramoteur.com” and “adventure-paramotors.com”.

The company has filed a UDRP complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain name <adventureparamotorsusa.com>, claiming that it infringes its rights.

The domain name was registered on March 14, 2018, by respondent Mike Robinson who acted as the Complainant’s authorized reseller for the United States. The domain name offered the Complainant’s products and services for sale. Due to the low level of sales generated by the Respondent in the United States, the Complainant decided to terminate the dealership agreement and instructed the Respondent to stop using the domain name <adventureparamotorsusa.com>.

The dispute between the parties arises as a result of the Respondent’s refusal to comply with this request. Indeed, the latter is ready to close the website on the condition that the complainant pays him $10,000, a sum that would represent the investment made by the Respondent for the construction of the website.

The French company maintains that the website associated with the disputed domain name was created by the Respondent without the prior express authorization of the Complainant.

The Complainant’s position is not supported by the expert, who considers that it fails to demonstrate that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The expert states: “the domain name was registered on March 14, 2018, the month the parties entered into their commercial agreement. It is also the month when the parties met to discuss the agreement (…). The panel assumes that the parties must have discussed during that March 2018 meeting the means by which the Respondent planned to promote the Complainant’s products in the United States (…). After all, the plaintiff must have known that the defendant would have an online presence and, usually trademark owners are concerned about whether these marketing elements (…) are in line with the image of the trademark. Similarly, the expert notes that “in none of the exchanges (…) between the parties during the term of the agreement did the Complainant argue about the registration of the domain name by the Respondent”.

The various exchanges between the protagonists show that the Complainant’s only reproach to the Respondent is that the latter continued using the domain name after the termination of the Concession Agreement, and not the registration of the domain name per se. Therefore, the Complainant does not prove in any way that the domain name was registered in bad faith. According to the expert and in view of the content of the exchanges between the parties, the Respondent did register the domain name in good faith for the purpose of promoting and selling the Complainant’s products under its trade agreement.

The expert ruling on the case concludes that the complaint should be dismissed.

In addition, he also states that the complaint was filed in bad faith by the Complainant, seeking to deprive the Respondent of ownership of its domain name.

Indeed, the UDRP procedure is not a tool for deliberately depriving a respondent of a domain name in circumstances that are outside the policy of the procedure.

In regards to the facts of the case, the Complainant clearly should have known that its complaint could not succeed since the respondent had registered the domain name in good faith.

Thus, great care must be taken with regard to the portfolio of domain names related to the company name or trademarks, as these are valuable assets. Drawing up a restrictive naming charter makes it possible to prevent as far as possible any dispute regarding the ownership of names that may arise with business partners.

Dreyfus firm, an expert in trademark law, can help you with the management of your domain names and trademarks portfolios.

Written by Dreyfus09/04/2020

Advice Group is an Italian company founded in 2006 and specialized in marketing. It is based in Turin but has offices in Rome, Bari and subsidiaries in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Portugal, Colombia and Peru.

Having noted the registration of the domain name <advicegroup.com> by a third party, the company turns to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for its transfer. The domain name was reserved in 2014 by Michele Dionia of Macrosten LTD, located in Cyprus. The domain name resolves to a page of commercial links and suggests that the name may be for sale (Internet users can make an offer).

The Respondent did not respond to the complaint.

The expert acknowledges the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the applicant’s Italian semi-figurative trademark, “A Advice Progressive Marketing Thinking”.

However, he decides not to rule on the issue of legitimate interest, referring to his observations on the issue of bad faith. Nevertheless, he makes several observations on the legitimate interest, in favor of the Respondent: the terms that make up the domain name are generic and the Respondent did not make active use of the name, he simply let the registrar promote its services and included a message advising Internet users to contact the registrant for the purchase of the name.

The expert also obviously did some research on his part, which he is not bound to do, since he notes that there are many companies called Advice Group throughout the world.

Concerning bad faith, the expert insists on the fact that at the time of the registration of the name, the applicant had not yet registered a trademark. The filing took place nine months after the reservation of the name in question and the obtaining of rights, two years later! Nothing suggests that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering this domain name consisting of dictionary terms. Moreover, the fact that Internet users could propose the purchase of the name does not mean that the aim of Macrosten LTD was to resell it at a high price to Advice Group.

Thus, not only is the complaint rejected, but the expert also decides to qualify the complaint as a case of “reverse domain name hijacking”, i.e. it is considered that the complaint was filed with the sole purpose of depriving the domain name holder of the domain name. Here, the Complainant accused the Respondent of cybersquatting even though no evidence to that effect was provided and the name, consisting of generic terms, predates the Complainant’s trademark registration.

It should be remembered that proving the bad faith of a registrant when the domain name consists of generic terms is difficult. It is essential to show that the registrant had the applicant’s trademark in mind. In the present case, it can be assumed that even if the Complainant’s trademark had been older, this would not have been sufficient to ensure the success of the complaint. The setting up of a site similar to that of the Complainant or for the same activities, or contact made by the registrant are elements that make possible to constitute a relevant case . Here, the Complainant had no evidence to justify his position.

Dreyfus firm, an expert in trademark law, can help you by offering you unique online trademark management services.

company

What Are the Pitfalls of Not Having IP Protection?

What are the suggested modifications to the UDRP?

Towards increased protection for authors and performers: what does Directive 2019/790 bring to the harmonization of contract chains?

Why does the willingness to sell a domain name is not conditioned on an active approach?

How does the bad faith duplicate between registration and bad faith use?

How to protect your brands in the digital era?

Unfair competition: a doomed market place

Filing a trademark on behalf of a company in the process of creation: who may bring a trademark infringement action?

The creation of a data access system Whois by ICANN

Figurative trademarks: be aware of the extent of your protection

The lovelinesss of the European Union: to obtain in one Member State a declaration of counterfeiting for acts committed in another Member State

Update covid-19: Dreyfus organization

The rise of phishing in the midst of the coronavirus crisis

The liberalization of prices for domain names in <.com>: a possible increase from2021

The reform of the tax regime for patentable products: “the French-style IP BOX“

Domain name registration by an unauthorized distributor: importance of the trademark holder’s behavior in assessing good faith

UDRP Procedure: abuse of right or, when the complaint is brought in bad faith

Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!

News from Dreyfus Blog

Categories

Categories

Contact