Dreyfus

With more than 4 million domain names registered under the .fr extension, France remains one of the most active national markets for online identifiers in Europe. This volume mechanically generates a substantial flow of disputes, ranging from outright cybersquatting to subtler typosquatting strategies aimed at diverting traffic from established brands. For foreign trademark owners and their counsel, recovering a misappropriated .fr domain name raises a recurring difficulty: the two alternative dispute resolution procedures available, SYRELI and PARL Expert, are governed by French law, conducted in French, and administered by the Afnic, the French registry. Many international IP firms therefore prefer to entrust these proceedings to a French correspondent rather than file them directly. This article sets out the legal framework, compares the two procedures, draws on representative case law, and explains the practical benefits of associating a court-appointed expert in intellectual property with counsel in charge of the file.

The legal framework governing .fr disputes

Articles L.45 and following of the French postal and electronic communications code

Disputes involving .fr domain names rest on a precise statutory foundation, codified at articles L.45 to L.45-8 of the Code des postes et des communications électroniques (CPCE). Article L.45-2 sets out the substantive grounds on which a registration may be challenged, in particular where the domain name is liable to infringe intellectual property rights or personality rights, unless the holder can justify a legitimate interest and good faith. The three classical criteria, identity or confusing similarity with a prior right, absence of legitimate interest, and bad faith, are weighed against this statutory grid. The decree of 1 August 2011 further organises the dispute resolution system entrusted to the Afnic.

The role of the Afnic as the .fr registry

The Afnic, Association française pour le nommage internet en coopération, is the registry in charge of the .fr extension and of several French overseas extensions. As the body responsible for assignment, it also administers the two extrajudicial procedures available to rights holders. Both procedures are open to any natural or legal person, including non-residents, but they are conducted exclusively in French and the decisions are rendered under French law. This combination explains why most foreign law firms refer the file to a Paris-based correspondent.

Two procedures, one governing law

SYRELI and PARL Expert are alternative, not cumulative. They share the same statutory basis but follow distinct procedural logics. A judicial action before the Paris tribunal judiciaire remains possible at all times, either as a substitute for or as a sequel to the Afnic procedures, in particular for damages or for the review of an administrative decision.

The SYRELI procedure

Origin and philosophy

Launched by the Afnic in 2011, SYRELI (Système de résolution de litiges) was conceived as a fast, fully online procedure dedicated to .fr disputes. The decision is rendered by an internal college of the registry, not by an external panel. The objective is twofold: deliver a swift outcome and offer a low-cost alternative to litigation for clear-cut cases of bad faith.

Cost, duration and decision

The official filing fee is currently 250 euros excluding VAT. The procedure unfolds in writing, without a hearing, and the decision is typically rendered within two months of the complaint being declared admissible. Three outcomes are available: rejection, deletion of the domain name, or transfer to the complainant.

Substantive criteria

To prevail under SYRELI, the complainant must establish that the disputed domain name infringes a right protected under article L.45-2 CPCE and that the holder cannot rely on a legitimate interest or good faith. In practice, three elements are reviewed: the existence of a prior right (trademark, trade name, family name, geographical indication, etc.), absence of legitimate interest of the holder, and indicia of bad faith. Unlike UDRP, where the three criteria are cumulative, SYRELI applies the statutory grid of article L.45-2 with greater flexibility.

Representative Afnic decisions

Two streams of decisions illustrate how the Afnic college applies these criteria. The first concerns typosquatting around well-known marks: in a 2023 decision, the college ordered the transfer of a .fr domain name that reproduced, with a single-letter substitution, the registered trademark of a major French food retailer; the holder operated a parking page generating click-through revenue, an indicium of bad faith expressly weighed by the panel. The second concerns distinctive signs combined with generic terms: in several decisions rendered in 2022 and 2023, the college held that the addition of a generic descriptor (such as a product category or geographical term) to a notorious mark does not neutralise the risk of confusion, particularly when the holder cannot demonstrate any preparation for a legitimate use.

These decisions are publicly available on the Afnic website and form a body of administrative case law that practitioners actively monitor when shaping a strategy on domain names law.

The PARL Expert procedure

Origin and structure

PARL Expert (Procédure alternative de résolution de litiges par un tiers expert) is the second route available before the Afnic. It is administered jointly by the Afnic and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the same body that handles UDRP disputes at the international level. The decision is rendered by a single independent expert drawn from a roster of specialists in domain name and intellectual property law.

Cost, duration and adversarial dimension

The filing fee is higher than under SYRELI, typically around 1,500 euros excluding VAT, which reflects the involvement of an external expert. The duration remains comparable, roughly two months. The decision is generally more extensively reasoned, with a closer engagement with the parties’ arguments and the case-law cited. For complex files, in particular where good faith is genuinely debated or where the holder advances a substantive defence, this depth of reasoning carries weight should the decision later be reviewed by a court.

Substantive criteria

The applicable criteria mirror those of SYRELI, since both procedures rest on article L.45-2 CPCE. The procedural difference lies in the depth of the contradictory exchange and in the identity of the decision-maker, an external expert rather than the registry itself.

Representative PARL Expert decisions

PARL Expert practice has produced detailed decisions on subtler factual patterns. In a representative case involving a renowned French luxury house, an expert ordered the transfer of a .fr domain name that combined the brand name with the term outlet, on the basis of three converging indicia: the prior registration of identical names in other extensions by the same holder, the redirection of traffic to a third-party marketplace, and the absence of any commercial relationship with the trademark owner. The reasoning sets out, point by point, the analysis of bad faith in the digital ecosystem and serves as a reference for similar configurations.

SYRELI vs PARL Expert: how to choose

Comparative grid

The choice between the two procedures depends on the factual complexity of the file and on the strategic posture of the complainant. The table below summarises the practical differences.

Strategic reading

SYRELI fits configurations where bad faith is apparent on the face of the file: identical reproduction, parking page, prior registrations against the same trademark owner. PARL Expert is preferable where the holder can raise a colourable defence (descriptive use, parallel commercial activity, contested similarity), since the depth of reasoning expected from the external expert offers a more solid foundation against a subsequent judicial review.

Judicial review and recourse

Either procedure can be followed by an action before the tribunal judiciaire de Paris, which has exclusive jurisdiction over domain name disputes under French law. The court conducts a full review of the file, not a limited control of the administrative decision. The jurisprudence of the Paris court emphasises that the burden of proving bad faith remains on the complainant and that the standard of proof must rest on objective indicia, not on conjecture. The Cour de cassation, ruling on the broader interaction between distinctive signs and unfair competition, has long held that the mere reservation of a domain name reproducing a third party’s trademark, without legitimate interest, may be qualified as an act of disloyal practice when accompanied by acts of exploitation. These principles guide the construction of any Afnic file destined to support an online brand enforcement strategy.

The synergy between counsel and court-appointed IP expert

Foreign counsel handling a .fr file rapidly meet a practical question: who frames the technical evidence on which the proceedings rely? In domain name disputes, evidence is digital by nature. Screenshots, WHOIS history, MX records, traffic redirections, parking page configurations: each element must be captured in a way that withstands later scrutiny by an expert panel or a court.

This is where the cooperation between the lawyer in charge of strategy and a court-appointed expert in intellectual property delivers its highest value. The lawyer steers the procedural posture, decides on the choice of forum, and pleads the case. The expert, registered with the Cour de cassation and the Paris Court of Appeal, brings the methodological rigour that the Afnic college and the WIPO expert expect when assessing similarity, legitimate interest and bad faith. The expert frames the chain of digital evidence, qualifies it under French law, and provides a written analysis that may be appended to the complaint.

In a recent file, an international group active in the cosmetics sector instructed a Parisian law firm to recover four .fr domain names reproducing variations of its principal trademark. The trademark owner had a notorious mark, but the holder of the domains claimed a personal first-name connection and a planned commercial use. Counsel called on Dreyfus & Associés to intervene as a court-appointed expert. The technical analysis established, through structured evidence, that the four names had been registered on the same day, redirected to a single parking infrastructure operated by a known reseller, and offered for sale through an intermediary. The PARL Expert panel transferred the four names within 70 days of the filing, citing the expert report among the elements supporting the bad-faith finding. The file illustrates how the combination of legal expertise in intellectual property and litigation strategy delivers a recoverable outcome where each professional, on their own, would have faced a longer or contested process.

The status of court-appointed expert in intellectual property

The status of expert judiciaire is not declarative. It results from a rigorous selection by the highest French courts. An expert is initially listed by a Court of Appeal, then, after several years of practice and on the basis of a renewed application, may be admitted to the national list maintained by the Cour de cassation. Each entry is published and may be verified by counsel before instructing an expert.

For practitioners outside France, three official directories make this verification straightforward:

• the official list of experts of the Paris Court of Appeal,
• the national list of the Cour de cassation,
• the CNCEJ directory, maintained by the National Council of court-appointed experts.

This selection guarantees that the expert is recognised by the Paris court, which is also the court of recourse in any subsequent action against an Afnic decision. In a file where the Afnic decision is appealed, the prior intervention of a court-appointed expert lends procedural continuity that judges value.

Why entrust the file to Dreyfus & Associés

Founded by Nathalie Dreyfus, court-appointed expert in intellectual property before the Cour de cassation and the Paris Court of Appeal, the firm has built, over twenty years, a recognised practice in trademark law and domain name disputes. The team handles SYRELI and PARL Expert filings on a daily basis, intervenes as a sachant in support of French and foreign counsel, and represents trademark owners before the Afnic and the WIPO Center. The firm is regularly instructed by international law firms acting for multinational groups, and works in French, English, German, Spanish, Italian and several Slavic languages.

FAQ

Does a SYRELI decision have res judicata effect?

No. A SYRELI decision is an administrative decision rendered by the registry. It does not have the authority of res judicata. Either party retains the right to bring the dispute before the Paris tribunal judiciaire, which will conduct a full review of the file. In practice, very few decisions are challenged, but the possibility of judicial review should be factored in when drafting the complaint, in particular when the holder is established outside France.

Can a foreign law firm file a SYRELI or PARL Expert complaint directly?

Yes, in principle. The procedures are open to any rights holder, irrespective of nationality. In practice, however, the language requirement (French) and the application of French substantive law lead most international IP firms to instruct a French correspondent, particularly when the file requires a technical analysis of bad faith or a fallback strategy in the event of a recourse. The intervention of a court-appointed expert in support of foreign counsel strengthens both the local credibility of the file and its chances on appeal.

What weight does a court-appointed expert’s report carry in a judicial review before the tribunal judiciaire?

A written report by an expert listed at the Cour de cassation or the Paris Court of Appeal is treated by the court as a methodologically reliable technical analysis. It does not bind the judge, who exercises a full review, but it is regularly cited in judgments. The report is particularly valuable on the qualification of similarity, the construction of bad faith, and the analysis of the digital evidence chain.

How can a SYRELI or PARL Expert procedure be articulated with a parallel infringement action?

The two procedures coexist. An Afnic procedure aims at the transfer or deletion of the domain name; an infringement action seeks damages and, where appropriate, ancillary measures such as the publication of the judgment. A common strategy consists in launching the Afnic procedure first, in order to secure the asset quickly, and in then bringing an action for damages once the transfer has been ordered, the file having already been documented.

Can bad faith be established on the basis of simple screenshots?

Not safely. A bare screenshot, captured by counsel or by the client, carries limited probative weight. The recommended practice is to combine a constat d’huissier (bailiff’s report) or a regulated electronic capture with a technical analysis by a court-appointed expert, who structures the indicia and qualifies them under French law. This combination converts a series of factual observations into a body of evidence on which the Afnic panel and, where applicable, the court can rely with confidence.

Conclusion

Recovering a .fr domain name is no longer a single-route exercise. SYRELI and PARL Expert offer complementary procedural paths, each suited to a specific factual configuration, and both subject to French law and to the supervision of the Paris court. For foreign rights holders and their counsel, the practical question is rarely the choice of the route in the abstract, but the construction of the file: the evidence, its qualification, and the procedural posture. To assess the optimal strategy for a .fr domain name dispute, please contact Dreyfus & Associés at https://www.dreyfus.fr/contact/ for an initial confidential exchange.

Dreyfus & Associés law firm partners with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.