Dreyfus

Entry Into Force on May 1, 2025 of the EU “Design Package”: Modernizing the EU Designs Framework

Written by Dreyfus19/11/2024

The recent publication of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 and Directive (EU) 2024/2823 marks a key milestone in the modernization of the European legal framework for designs. These reforms, with certain provisions taking effect from May 1, 2025, foresee a phased implementation to harmonize, simplify, and adapt the system to the digital age.

Harmonization and modernization

The term “Community design” has been updated to “European Union design” (EUD). This symbolic change modernizes the terminology while aligning it with that of European trademarks. To enhance identification, a visual symbol Ⓓ has been introduced, providing greater coherence within the system.

The reform expands definitions to incorporate technological advances. Animations, graphical interfaces, and digital twins are now included in the scope of protection, reflecting their essential role in modern industries. The concept of “product” has also been extended to non-physical forms, covering items used in video games or virtual environments such as the metaverse.

Filing procedures are now more flexible and better suited to creators’ needs. Applications can group up to 50 designs without classification constraints, and various digital formats are now accepted for design representations. Additionally, creators can defer publication for up to 30 months, offering strategic discretion to protect their designs while planning their market launch.

To promote accessibility, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and independent designers, some fees have been reduced or eliminated. Filing fees, for example, have been lowered, and the costs associated with the transfer of rights have been completely removed. However, a notable increase in renewal fees is expected. Previously, renewal fees for a 25-year period ranged from €90 to €180. Under the new framework, fees will start at €150 and rise to €700 by the fourth renewal cycle. This adjustment may disproportionately affect industries with longer product life cycles, such as automotive and industrial design, compared to industries like fashion, which are less impacted by the fee increase.

Enhanced protection of rights

The EU reform clarifies key aspects of design visibility. From now on, visibility is no longer a general requirement for protection, except for components of complex products. This revision eliminates past ambiguities and extends protection to a wider range of contemporary and diverse designs.

A major innovation is the introduction of the repair clause. This provision removes legal protection for spare parts necessary to restore the appearance of a complex product, limiting exclusive rights in this domain. The measure strikes a balance between design protection and competition in the spare parts market. However, it requires manufacturers to inform consumers about the origin of the products used for repairs, enhancing transparency and enabling informed choices.

In the realm of 3D printing, the reform introduces an exclusive right allowing rights holders to prohibit the creation, dissemination, and use of digital files capable of reproducing a protected design via 3D printing. Although this technology remains relatively uncommon in households, the provisions anticipate its potential growth, safeguarding creators’ rights in this emerging field.

Lastly, the reform extends rights holders’ protections to goods in transit within the European Union, even if their final destination is outside EU territory. This change strengthens the enforcement of intellectual property rights in a globalized context, addressing the challenges posed by counterfeit goods in international trade.

Alternative dispute resolution and legal certainty

The reform encourages EU Member States to establish administrative mechanisms for contesting the validity of national designs. Inspired by the EUIPO model for the European trademark (oppositions and cancelation actions), this approach offers a less expensive and faster alternative to traditional judicial procedures.

Additionally, the requirement for first disclosure within the EU has been abolished. Now, the initial disclosure of a design outside the EU can confer protection as an unregistered design. This change eliminates ambiguities from previous regulations, an important aspect in the post-Brexit context, where many designers chose the UK for their first presentations. This clarification further harmonizes the legal framework and reduces uncertainties for creators operating across multiple markets.

Key challenges to monitor

While the reform has integrated significant advances for the digital age, uncertainties remain regarding the protection of AI-generated designs. This rapidly growing area raises fundamental questions about the adequacy of current legal frameworks, making it essential to ensure effective protection tailored to these new forms of creation.

Additionally, the growing divergences between EU and UK regimes, exacerbated by Brexit, require close attention. Creators and businesses must exercise caution to harmonize their design protection strategies in these two now-distinct territories, minimizing legal and commercial risks associated with this fragmentation.

Timeline and future prospects

The new provisions will take effect in May 2025 for the regulation, while Member States have until December 2027 to transpose the directive into their national laws. This phased approach aims to ensure a harmonized application of the new rules across the European Union, offering creators an adjustment period.

The EU design reform represents a significant step forward in modernizing the legal framework and addressing 21st-century challenges. By clarifying key concepts, simplifying processes, and anticipating technological developments, the European Union offers a robust and inclusive system. For businesses and creators operating in Europe, adapting swiftly to these changes is essential to maximize the protection and competitiveness of their designs.

For assistance with managing and protecting your designs, our intellectual property experts are at your service. Dreyfus Law Firm with an international network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

Join us on social media!

Instagram

LinkedIn

Written by Dreyfus18/11/2024

Breaking Down INPI’s Landmark Decision: A Tale of Two Industries

The French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) recently addressed an intriguing trademark dispute that caught the entertainment industry’s attention. The case, involving a character name from the popular Netflix series “Emily in Paris,” has illuminated crucial aspects of bad faith trademark registration claims in the entertainment sector. The dispute centered on a trademark registration filed for cosmetics under Class 3, strategically positioned two months after the series premiere. The contested trademark is related to a fictional character portrayed as an extravagant couturier in the series, creating an unexpected intersection between beauty, fashion, and trademark law.

The INPI’s investigation delved deep into the chronology of events. Their analysis revealed “insufficient evidence” to establish the trademark holder’s awareness of prior use at the filing date. Despite the character “Pierre Cadault” prominently featured in the series as a renowned fashion designer, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the name “Cadault” alone had achieved meaningful recognition in France during the crucial initial months following the show’s release.

The art of proving bad faith: Beyond surface-level analysis

A pivotal element in the INPI’s decision rested on the distinction between industries. While acknowledging the subtle connection between high fashion and cosmetics, the INPI determined that cosmetics operate in a separate commercial sphere from haute couture. This industry differentiation substantially weakened any presumed connection between the character’s name and the registered trademark category.

The INPI emphasized a fundamental principle: “mere awareness” of prior use does not constitute fraudulent intent. The burden of proving bad faith registration demands concrete evidence that the filing was specifically calculated to prevent a third party from utilizing a necessary business identifier. The timing of the registration, occurring two and a half months post-series launch, combined with the absence of communication between parties, significantly influenced the final determination.

The INPI’s reasoning revealed a subtle understanding of practical trademark enforcement. The notable absence of any legal action by the trademark holder to prevent the character’s name use in the series substantially undermined claims of malicious intent. This passive approach contrasted sharply with typical bad-faith scenarios, where trademark holders actively pursue cease-and-desist measures or legal proceedings.

A framework precision for evaluating bad faith

The decision carried significant implications for the intersection of entertainment properties and trademark rights. The INPI acknowledged that while obtaining an injunction to prevent character name use would be legally challenging, potential conflicts could arise if Viacom pursued character-based cosmetic products. This nuanced observation highlights the complex relationship between entertainment content and commercial trademark rights.

This decision clarifies the framework for assessing bad faith in entertainment-related trademark registrations. The ruling emphasizes the critical importance of substantial evidence, industry context, and practical commercial implications. Future disputes will likely reference this decision’s “balanced approach” to evaluating trademark validity in the entertainment sector.

Conclusion

The INPI’s thorough analysis offers valuable guidance for navigating the complex landscape of entertainment property rights and trademark protection. The decision underscores the necessity of considering both immediate and potential future commercial applications when evaluating trademark registration intent. This forward-looking perspective ensures that trademark protection serves its intended purpose without unduly restricting creative expression in the entertainment industry.

The ruling’s subtle approach to analyzing bad faith claims provides a robust framework that balances the legitimate interests of trademark applicants with those of entertainment property rights holders. As the entertainment industry continues to evolve, this decision will serve as a crucial reference point for resolving similar disputes, ensuring fair and practical outcomes in the dynamic intersection of entertainment and trademark law.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we recognize that the entertainment and media landscape present unique challenges for trademark protection, as evidenced by the recent “Emily in Paris” case. Our expertise lies in navigating these complex intersections between creative content and trademark rights. We guide entrepreneurs and companies through the intricate process of establishing and defending their trademark rights, particularly when industries overlap, as we saw with the fashion and cosmetics sectors in this case. “Bad faith claims” require sophisticated analysis and compelling evidence, but they are insufficient to demonstrate prior use or knowledge. Dreyfus Law Firm excels at building comprehensive strategies that consider both immediate concerns and future commercial implications. Our team prides itself on helping clients understand the practical aspects of trademark enforcement while ensuring their intellectual property assets are properly protected across multiple industries and jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm partners with an international network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property law.

Join us on social media!

Instagram

Linkedin

Written by Dreyfus16/07/2024

At Dreyfus, we understand the critical importance of protecting and valuing your company’s intangible assets. This is why we offer tailored support through the IP Strategy Diagnostic, an initiative supported by Bpifrance.

What is the IP Strategy Diagnostic?

The IP Strategy Diagnostic, implemented by Bpifrance, is designed to assist innovative Start-ups, SMEs, and mid-sized companies. It provides financial aid covering 80% of consulting costs, up to a maximum of €10,000 excluding VAT. This initiative aims to develop a suitable intellectual property (IP) strategy, enabling the valuation of your intangible assets such as patents, trademarks, designs, software, and data.

Objectives of the IP Strategy Diagnostic

The primary goal of the IP Strategy Diagnostic is to strengthen your IP strategy, which is essential for your company’s growth. Key objectives include:

– Identifying and evaluating your assets : Determine the strengths and improvement areas of your intangible assets.

– Securing professional relationships : Protect IP aspects in your interactions with clients, partners, and employees.

– Developing an action plan : Implement concrete steps for the protection and valuation of your assets, aligned with your commercial strategy.

– Competitive analysis : Understand the IP strategies of other market players and anticipate potential challenges.

Implementation Process

The IP Strategy Diagnostic process involves several stages :

Initial assessment : Analyze existing intangible assets in relation to your projects and market.
Strategy definition : Develop an IP strategy with specific actions to protect and value your assets.
Implementation and training : Propose suitable training and implement the recommended actions.

Costs and Funding

The total cost of this service ranges from €3,000 to €10,000 excluding VAT, depending on your company’s complexity and specific needs. With Bpifrance’s subsidy covering 80% of the costs, you can receive financial support ranging from €2,400 to €8,000 excluding VAT.

Eligibility Criteria

The IP Strategy Diagnostic is available to independent Start-ups, SMEs, and mid-sized companies registered in France, with fewer than 2,000 employees. To benefit, a prequalification phase with an expert recognized by Bpifrance is required. Once validated, you can submit your funding request through your online Bpifrance account.

Dreyfus Expertise

With over 30 years of experience, Dreyfus is renowned for supporting companies in protecting and valuing their intangible assets. Our experts assist you in:

– Feasibility assessment of your projects : Analyzing objectives, markets, strengths, and constraints.

– Development of your IP strategy : Creating and managing your IP portfolios.

– Valuation of your assets : Conducting audits, evaluations, and providing investor advice.

– Protection of your assets : Managing disputes, opposition, arbitration, and mediation.

– Contract drafting : Negotiating and drafting IP-related agreements and business contracts.

– Competitive intelligence : Technical and legal monitoring.

– Training and awareness : Custom training programs to meet your needs.

Conclusion

At Dreyfus, we are committed to helping you optimize the value of your intangible assets and secure your operations with a well-defined intellectual property strategy. Contact us to learn more about our support and how we can assist you in benefiting from Bpifrance’s IP Strategy Diagnostic.

Written by Dreyfus29/03/2023

In a world where the lines between different artistic disciplines are becoming increasingly blurred, fashion designers often draw inspiration from art to bring their collections to life or to promote their brands.

This issue echoes the recent dispute between the brand Zadig&Voltaire and artist Julian Charriere over a promotional video for the brand that features a flaming fountain, similar to the one captured by the artist in his “And Beneath it all Flows Liquid Fire” video in 2019.

Many fashion designers are inspired by works of art to create their collections and advertising campaigns. However, some of them cross the line and copy the work of established artists almost exactly, without giving them the credit they deserve. This practice is not only ethically questionable, but can can also be harmful to the original artists in terms of violating their intellectual property (“IP”) rights.

Legal issues of intellectual property in fashion and art

Copyrighting protects original works of the mind, whether they are literary, musical, graphic, plastic or photographic creations. Fashion designers may be tempted to take inspiration from a work of art to design a new piece or an advertising campaign, but it is essential to consider the legal issues related to IP.

Plagiarism, or mindless copying of a work, is a violation of copyright. In the case of fashion, it can mean using a work of art without permission to create prints, patterns or even the shape of a garment. If the copying is obvious, the original artist can sue for damages.

The fine line between fashion and art is even more blurred as many luxury brands have launched their own art foundations such as the Cartier Foundation or the Louis Vuitton Foundation.

However, it is important to note that copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression. Thus, taking inspiration from a work of art in order to create a fashion piece is not necessarily illegal, so long as the creation is suitably original and does not directly copy the work in question. Additionally, some artists occasionally can collaborate with fashion designers, such as Louis Vuitton, who recently worked with Japanese artist Yakoi Kusuma to produce a new collection as well as to transform the Louis Vuitton store in Paris, now decorated with a monumental silhouette of the artist.

Consequences of intellectual property infringement

IP infringement can have negative consequences for artists and the fashion industry.

Plagiarism robs original artists of recognition and fair compensation for their work. When a piece of work is copied without permission, the original artist is not credited or paid for their work. This can lead to a loss of income for artists, causing them to abandon their creative work or settle for less than their talent.

In addition, intellectual property infringement hinders innovation in the creative industry. When artists are not rewarded for their work, it can discourage innovation and the creation of new works. Companies that copy original works do not need to devote resources to research and development of new ideas, as they can simply copy those of others.

Finally, intellectual property infringement can have a negative impact on the brand image of companies that engage in this practice. Consumers are increasingly aware of the importance of ethics and corporate social responsibility. When a company is accused of plagiarism or intellectual property infringement, it can damage its brand image and consumer confidence in the company.

In summation, the phenomenon of plagiarism of art by fashion raises complex questions and considerable stakes, both artistically and legally. The line between inspiration and copying can sometimes be unclear, and the fashion industry seems to navigate these murky waters in search of creativity and innovation.

While some see this appropriation as a democratization of art and a way to enrich fashion, others see them as a threat to the value and integrity of original works. At a time when legislation is struggling to adapt to these issues, it is the responsibility of fashion designers and consumers to commit to ethical fashion that respects art and its creators.

It is critical to continue the dialogue between the different actors involved and to rethink the mechanisms of intellectual property protection to ensure a fair balance between creative freedom and respect for copyright. Creators, as well as artists, can call upon professionals such as Industrial Property Attorneys, with their networks of lawyers specialized in intellectual property, to ensure that no IP rights are infringed upon.

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.

This article is current as of the date of its publication and does not necessarily reflect the present state of the law or relevant regulation.

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2023

Intellectual property (IP) litigation is an important tool for protecting and enforcing rights in IP assets, such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. When an IP owner’s rights are infringed or someone else is using their IP without permission, the owner may have the right to take legal action against the offender. IP litigation can help the owner to protect their valuable IP assets, as well as their reputation and market position.

The benefits of IP litigation include:

1. Protection of IP Rights IP litigation is an effective way to protect your IP assets from infringement. It allows you to enforce your IP rights and stop unauthorized use of your IP, while also deterring future infringers. By filing a lawsuit, you can also seek damages or other relief to make up for any losses caused by the infringement.

2. Strengthening of IP Rights Through the process of IP litigation, you can also strengthen your IP rights. This is because the court may issue an injunction that requires the infringing party to stop using your IP or to pay you for any profits they made from using your IP. This can help to bolster your IP rights and make it more difficult for others to infringe on them in the future.

3. Deterrence of Unlawful Use The threat of IP litigation can also act as a deterrent to others who may be considering using your IP without permission. By demonstrating that you are willing to take legal action to protect your IP rights, you can create a deterrent effect that can help to discourage others from infringing on your IP.

4. Valuable Legal Remedies IP litigation can also provide you with valuable legal remedies that can help you to recover the costs of defending your IP rights. In some cases, you may be able to recover damages or other relief to compensate you for any losses caused by the infringement.

In addition to these benefits, IP litigation can also provide you with a sense of satisfaction that you are protecting your IP rights and standing up for what is right. It can be a powerful way to make sure that your IP is respected and protected. So how can you make the most of IP litigation? Here are a few tips:

1. Understand Your IP Rights The first step to making the most of IP litigation is to understand your IP rights. You should be familiar with the different types of IP protection and what rights they provide, as well as any related laws or regulations. This will help you to identify potential infringements and determine whether or not you have the right to take legal action.

2. Seek Professional Advice It is also important to seek professional advice when it comes to IP litigation. An experienced IP lawyer can provide you with guidance on your legal rights and remedies, as well as help you to pursue a successful legal action.

3. Take Action Quickly Acting quickly is key when it comes to IP litigation. You should take action as soon as you become aware of a potential infringement, as the longer you wait, the more difficult it may be to prove your case.

4. Gather Evidence The more evidence you have to support your case, the stronger it will be. This means gathering evidence such as documents, emails, and other records that show the infringement occurred.

By following these tips, you can make the most of IP litigation and protect your valuable IP rights.

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2023

The legal landscape of the tech industry is constantly changing, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in IT law. Companies must stay up to date with the latest laws and regulations to ensure that their businesses remain compliant. Understanding the latest trends in IT law can help companies ensure that they are taking advantage of the latest legal opportunities and protecting their intellectual property.

One of the most important trends in IT law is the increasing focus on data privacy. As technology has advanced, companies have begun collecting and storing more information about their customers than ever before. In response, governments around the world have implemented new regulations to protect consumer data and ensure that companies are held accountable for how they store and use customer information. Companies must understand these laws and make sure that their practices are compliant. Another important trend in IT law is the emergence of cloud computing.

Cloud computing allows companies to store and access data remotely, eliminating the need for physical storage devices. However, this also creates a new set of legal issues, as companies must consider the legal implications of storing and accessing data in a cloud environment. Companies must be aware of the applicable laws and regulations in order to ensure that their use of cloud computing is compliant. Finally, IT law is also increasingly focusing on cyber security. Companies must be aware of the legal requirements for protecting their networks and data against cyber attacks. Companies must also be aware of the legal implications of any cyber security breaches that may occur. Understanding the latest trends in cyber security law can help companies ensure that they are taking the necessary steps to protect their networks and data.

So, how can companies leverage these trends in IT law? Firstly, they should ensure that they are up to date with the latest laws and regulations. Companies should also consider the legal implications of any new technologies they are using, such as cloud computing or cyber security solutions. Companies must also make sure that they are taking the necessary steps to protect their networks and data against cyber attacks. Finally, companies should consult with an experienced IT lawyer to ensure that they are taking advantage of the latest legal opportunities and protecting their intellectual property.

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2023

As the world becomes increasingly digital, it is important to understand how to protect your intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is an asset that can be protected and controlled, but it requires the right strategies to do so. In the digital age, there are various strategies you can use to protect your intellectual property rights.

The first, and most important, strategy to secure your intellectual property rights is to register your intellectual property with the appropriate government body. Depending on the country, this may be a copyright registration, patent registration, or trademark registration. By registering your intellectual property, you are ensuring that your rights are legally binding and can be enforced in the event of infringement. Another strategy to protect your intellectual property rights is to use effective contracts.

If you are working with someone else on a project, it is important to have a contract in place that outlines each party’s rights and responsibilities in regards to the intellectual property. This will help ensure that each party is aware of and respects the other’s rights. In addition, you can also use technological tools to protect your intellectual property rights. For example, you can use digital rights management (DRM) software to help prevent unauthorized use of your intellectual property. DRM software can help protect your intellectual property from unauthorized access and copying, as well as from piracy.

Finally, you should be aware of the laws that apply to intellectual property in your jurisdiction. There are various laws and regulations that apply to intellectual property, such as copyright laws and trademark laws. By understanding these laws, you can ensure that you are taking the necessary steps to protect your intellectual property rights.

By following these strategies, you can help ensure that your intellectual property rights are protected in the digital age. It is important to understand the laws that apply to intellectual property and to use effective contracts and technological tools to protect your rights. Additionally, registering your intellectual property is essential to legally enforce your rights. By taking the necessary steps to protect your intellectual property, you can help ensure that your rights are respected and protected in the digital age.

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.

Written by Dreyfus10/03/2023

The advent of Web 3.0 has ushered in a new era of digital law, and it has become important for businesses and individuals to understand the implications of this new legal landscape. Web 3.0 law, also referred to as “smart contract” law, is a type of technology-based law that governs the use of digital assets and transactions. It is an incredibly important development in the world of intellectual property law, as it presents both opportunities and risks for businesses and individuals.

The primary benefit of Web 3.0 law is that it allows for the secure and seamless transfer of digital assets. Smart contracts are self-executing contracts that use blockchain technology to securely and anonymously store and transfer data. This increases the security and reliability of digital transactions, and makes them more efficient and cost-effective.

Furthermore, Web 3.0 law can help to protect intellectual property rights, as it allows for the secure tracking and control of digital assets. However, there are some potential drawbacks to Web 3.0 law. For one, it can be difficult to enforce, as the technology is still relatively new and there is not yet a unified legal framework.

Additionally, smart contracts are not always legally enforceable, meaning that parties may have difficulty obtaining legal recourse should a dispute arise. Furthermore, Web 3.0 law can be quite complex, and it is essential that businesses and individuals have a clear understanding of how it works in order to ensure that their legal rights are protected.

Overall, Web 3.0 law presents both opportunities and risks for businesses and individuals. It is an important development in the world of intellectual property law, and it is essential that businesses and individuals have a clear understanding of its implications. With the right knowledge and guidance, businesses and individuals can take advantage of the opportunities offered by Web 3.0 law while mitigating the risks.

Written by Dreyfus10/03/2023

As an intellectual property (IP) owner, it is essential to protect your rights and defend your IP against infringement. However, this can be difficult and complex, as there are a variety of challenges that can arise when attempting to protect your IP.

The first challenge is the cost of defending your rights. IP litigation can be expensive, especially when involving a large company or multiple parties. The cost of litigation includes legal fees, court costs, and expert witness fees. Additionally, you must consider the opportunity cost of taking time away from your business or research to pursue IP litigation.

The second challenge is the time and effort involved in defending your IP. IP litigation can be lengthy and complex, often taking years to resolve. You must be prepared to invest significant time and resources into the process, from researching the law to preparing legal documents and attending court proceedings.

The third challenge is the risk of not being able to successfully defend your IP. Even if you have a strong legal case and a good strategy, there is no guarantee that you will prevail in court. In addition, the court may order you to pay the other party’s legal fees if you lose the case.

The fourth challenge is the difficulty of enforcing a favorable judgment. Even if you win your case and the court orders the other party to stop infringing your IP, it can be difficult to actually enforce the judgment.

This is especially true if the other party is located in a different jurisdiction or is a large corporation with significant resources.

The fifth challenge is the risk of negative publicity. IP litigation can be very public, and the media may report on the case. This can put a negative light on your business or research, and may even affect your ability to attract investors or customers.

Finally, IP owners must be aware of the risk of counterclaims. The other party may file a counterclaim against you in an attempt to avoid liability or to shift the blame. These counterclaims can be difficult to defend against and may require additional resources and legal fees.

Overall, defending your IP rights can be a complicated and expensive process. As an IP owner, it is important to understand the risks and challenges associated with IP litigation and to be prepared to address them. While the process can be difficult, it is essential to protecting your valuable IP rights.

Written by Dreyfus03/03/2023

An intellectual property attorney is a lawyer specialized in intellectual property law, who has a mission to support the protection of intellectual creations. Intellectual property law includes industrial property such as patents, trademarks and designs, as well as literary and artistic property. Intellectual property lawyers have a unique set of skills and knowledge related to filing, drafting contracts, as well as litigation related to intellectual property rights.

The purpose of an intellectual property lawyer is to assist individuals and businesses in protecting their intellectual property rights. This includes providing legal advice and representation to clients involved in the development, protection and enforcement of their intellectual property rights, primarily in the areas of patent, trademark, design and copyright.

Patents: A patent is a government grant that gives the owner exclusive rights to make and sell his invention. To obtain a patent, you must file a patent application with the national or regional Intellectual Property Office and meet the criteria for patentability including novelty, inventive step and industrial application. An intellectual property lawyer can assist in the patent application process, as well as in the application of a patent.

Trademarks: A trademark is a sign that distinguishes the products or services of a company from those of its competitors. The trademark can be a word, a name, a logo, etc. or a combination of these elements. Being one of the industrial property rights, it is necessary for the owner to file the trademark application with the coorect office. In order to be registered, the trademark must also meet certain criteria, including availability, distinctiveness and lawfulness. Trademarks have a central place in the work of intellectual property attorneys because they are important assets and the capital of companies.

Designs: Intellectual property lawyers also assist clients with the protection of designs. They protect the appearance of a product or part of a product characterized by lines, contours, colors, etc.

Copyright: Copyright is the legal protection of an original work expressed in tangible form. Copyright protects not only literary works, but also musical, graphic, and sound creations, as well as software and applied art. Although copyright is automatically protected without procedures, it is recommended to file the application for registration. An intellectual property lawyer can assist in the registration and enforcement of a copyright.

An intellectual property lawyer is an important asset for individuals and companies seeking to protect their intellectual property. The role of intellectual property lawyers contributes significantly to the development of technology as well as the economy.

This article is current as of the date of its publication and does not necessarily reflect the present state of the law or relevant regulation.

Written by Dreyfus02/03/2023

The Legal Expert’s role is to give an opinion on precise technical points. He or she can be designated by the Judge or by parties to the proceeding. Legal experts are present in all fields where a technical opinion may be required, for example for medicine, architecture, law, which of course includes Intellectual Property law.

What is the “specific” role of the Legal Expert in Intellectual Property?

Technicality and technicity are at the heart of intellectual property. Innovation and creation are the essence of this subject. Therefore, resorting to Experts is often mandatory to analyze, explain or interpret an Inventor’s invention or a Creative’s creation from a technical point of view.

For example, the Legal Expert in Intellectual Property may be called upon to evaluate the prejudices caused by an infringement of an Intellectual Property Right, which are often difficult to estimate, particularly in the case of Trademarks. More generally, the expert may examine the technical evidence or question parties in order to provide an impartial opinion.

It is important to note, that the judge is not required to follow the Expert’s recommendations, however they may rely on the Expert’s report or testimony at the hearing as a basis for their decision.

How are Legal Experts in Intellectual Property appointed?

There are two distinct ways to designate a Legal Expert during a legal proceeding.

Firstly, a Judge will call upon the experts registered on the National lists. The Experts are specialized and there are several lists available that classify Experts by specialty and subspecialties. . One list is made by the French Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) and there is also one list via the Appeal Courts. Secondly, the parties to the proceeding may also directly contact a Legal Expert of their choice. This Expert may not be on the lists of the Cour de cassation or the Appeal Courts. In this case, the Expert will have to take an oath before a Judge at the time of the hearing.

What is the role of Dreyfus & associés ?

Dreyfus is an Industrial Property law firm based in Paris.

Nathalie Dreyfus, founder of Dreyfus & associés, is a registered Legal Expert before the Paris Court of Appeal for specialty E.09.02 Industrial Property – Trademarks. In December, 2022, she was named as a Legal Expert before the French Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) for the same specialty.

The Legal Expert in Intellectual Property is above all a technical and Legal Expert in one or more Intellectual Property specialties, having several years of experience practicing Intellectual Property Law.

The process involves the Legal Expert intervening in a legal proceeding to provide their expertise on a Trademark, a Patent or a design’s technical aspects and in so doing, they help the Judge to motivate towards a decision.

For further information, do not hesitate to contact us:

contact@dreyfus.fr.

Written by Dreyfus08/12/2022

Over the past decade, the architecture, engineering, construction and Operations (AECO) industry has undergone several developments, particularly in the area of information technology. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is now globally considered a better solution to enormous building problems, which made a huge effect on the building and construction industry. The industry is facing a practical challenge in protecting design when conflict arises between owner’s and architect’s proprietary rights.

“We shape our buildings ; thereafter they shape us.” – Winston Churchill

There was a time when pencil, paper and complex drawing were the base of construction planning, creating a tiring process with lots of loopholes. However, things have changed. It is now all about Building Information Modelling (BIM) which has been part of the construction industry for some time now. It connects the AECO professionals to design, build and operate infrastructure more efficiently. It is more than just 2D or 3D modelling. It is the process of designing a building collaboratively using one cohort system of computer models rather than as a separate set of drawings.

So, what does make BIM so exciting?

It provides insights into design constructability, reduces errors, and improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction phase. It can help owners in predictive maintenance, asset tracking and facilities management for future changes and renovation work. It does not solely refer to buildings, but to all sectors that have to do with construction, including roads, railways, utilities, bridges, tunnels, structures, architecture, topography, etc. BIM can be classified into different levels.

Where does intellectual property come into this conversation?

Let’s take a situation- an architect draws a design plan for the construction of a cafeteria. The contractor executes the work as per plan. However, the owner decides to reuse the design with some small changes for a second cafeteria. In such a case, apart from monetary consideration for services of design, does the architect have any other rights? Can he stop the owner from making changes to the design suggested by him? The answer to all such questions lies in Copyright and Design Law.

BIM models created in the tendering process before the award of the contract will not usually be registered. Therefore, BIM models cannot be protected by Design Law. Article 10 of Directive 98/71/EC, provides that the protection of designs is subject to their registration. However, unregistered designs can be covered by copyright under the concept of artistic work although EU Member States differ in how national copyright law protects unregistered designs. For instance, the French Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle) article L112-2.7, and the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright 2014, Consolidated Act No 1144 of 23 October 2014 (Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret (LBK nr 1144 of 23/10/2014)) in section 1.1, all list works of architecture under copyright law.

Determining the ownership of IP rights over the BIM model and its elements is necessary to determine the lawful exercise of ownership. Generally, an owner of a model is granted exclusive right regarding the use of Intellectual Property, and consequently to copy and disclose it as it wishes. In BIM Level 3, however, the authors of the model are regularly indistinguishable. However, if the contracting authorities are services of design, does the architect have any other rights ? Can he stop the owner from making changes to the design suggested by him ? The answer to all such questions lies in Copyright and Design Law.

Determining the ownership of IP rights over the BIM model and its elements is necessary to determine the lawful exercise of ownership. Generally, an owner of a model is granted exclusive right regarding the use of Intellectual Property, and consequently to copy and disclose it as it wishes. In BIM Level 3, however, the authors of the model are regularly indistinguishable. However, if the contracting authorities are to be granted ownership of a BIM model jointly with a tenderer or winner, exercising their right by disclosing it to a third party would be contrary to the interest of the other joint owner. Therefore, the French, German and Danish legislatures grant joint ownership of jointly developed BIM models and regulate in their copyright laws the right of the owners in exercising ownership rights.

In this regard, the French Intellectual Property Code Article L.113-3 provides:

‘The collaborative work is the common property of the co-authors. The co-authors must exercise their rights by an agreement. In the event of disagreement, it is for the civil jurisdiction to rule.’

The developers of a BIM model in a tendering process will be the joint owners of the model and the exercise of their rights is governed by the copyright law of the relevant EU Member State. Since the exercise of its ownership rights by each owner can potentially conflict with the interests of another owner, such exercise would generally only be permitted with the consent of the other owner(s). Therefore, the contracting authorities would not have the right to disclose the BIM model to third parties without the prior consent of the tenderer with whom they developed the BIM model.

The possibilities of BIM are endless, the trend in the construction industry is, and when there is something new, people immediately want to assign more risk to it. Thus, companies/individuals have Thus, companies/individuals have started getting the intellectual property right registered during the initial stage of a project.

Science and technology are developing faster than intellectual property legislation. As a result, previously unknown products of intellectual activity are regulated by general rules. While working and exchanging digital data on a collaborative platform can cause problems related to intellectual property such as if a copyright violation of models and intellectual property enters the court process, it poses a great financial risk and can cause project delays that will result in its loss. Before a project is implemented, there needs to be a clear understanding not only of who owns the model but also of who is responsible for the model. Then, we must consider which actors have the potential to retain the collaborative product for its sustainability. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a review and synthesis of the related studies to identify the model ownership and intellectual property rights.

“Gender washing & Greenwashing: Mother Nature, emblem of the instrumentalisation of societal and environmental struggles by tomorrow’s enterpreneurship?”

If you want to know more about intellectual property issues and discover a rich and experienced vision on the subject, you can also read the article Nathalie Dreyfus wrote for “Women’s IP world Annual”.

ABOUT THIS TOPIC…

♦Online Trademark Protection

Written by Dreyfus16/05/2022

In a major development for the global Intellectual Property ecosystem, China joined the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs on 5 February 2022. This accession will enter into force on 5 May 2022. Following Belarus and Jamaica, the world’s second largest economy has just joined this Union which aims to facilitate the international registration of designs.

Joining a system to facilitate access to design protection

The Hague System was set up to facilitate the protection of industrial designs internationally, through a simplified filing system with a single office: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Currently, 76 contracting parties are members of the system, bringing together 93 countries, including France, the European Union, the US, but also many countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. Given the importance of the appearance of a product, many countries have ratified the Hague Agreement in recent years. China has become the 77th contracting party to the Agreement.

Registering designs with WIPO allows them to be protected in the chosen countries – provided they have actually joined the Hague system – by paying a fee for each requested country. It is therefore not, strictly speaking, an international protection, as each title remains valid only in the concerned territory. Similarly, all acts relating to the protection of the design (registration, renewal) will be carried out in a single procedure.

The consequences of such accession

From now on, all Chinese designers will be able to benefit from the international design system. It is faster and less costly, and limits formalities by providing for a single filing covering up to 100 designs. As for foreign designers, they will have an easier access to the Chinese market, the world’s largest design application market. In 2020, the Chinese Intellectual Property Office received applications containing some 770,362 designs, which represents about 55% of global design applications. By comparison, there were “only” 113,196 EUIPO design filings.

However, the sole registration of a design with WIPO does not guarantee its protection in all the countries requested. WIPO then notifies the offices of all the designated States for an examination specific to each legislation. It is therefore necessary to pay particular attention to the conditions for protection. For example, in France: novelty, specific character and visibility of the design!

In order to file an application for design protection, French legislation provides for a grace period of 12 months following the first disclosure of the design. China, on the other hand, requires absolute novelty. It will therefore be necessary to pay attention to the specific protection conditions in certain countries in order to optimize the protection of a design internationally.

China’s accession to the Hague Agreement is therefore a real step forward in the homogenization of design registration. China has thus become the 77th contracting party to the Hague Agreement and gives hope that other highly innovative States will soon join in.

Detecting potential trademark infringements and securing your trademarks online

We report potential trademark infringements on the Internet and social networks and we provide you with personalized advice regarding your portfolio management strategy, including weaknesses that could hinder the development of your (digital) business and give rise to possible litigation.

In this regard, we offer you appropriate and personalized strategies to anticipate dangers, such as online fraud (i.e. phishing, fake websites, identity theft, forged emails, etc.) which requires immediate action as it can be significantly damaging to the image and reputation of your trademark and may generate a financial loss.

For compliance purposes, we can help you put in place a strategy to prevent any breach caused by domain names. This includes – in addition to monitoring your trademark among Internet domain names – monitoring of your trademark on other social networks (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat) to detect and respond appropriately to any new breach.
With our intuitive platform, Dreyfus IPWeb®, we allow our clients to have access to – and closely follow their trademark files online. Moreover, our clients have access to the results of the performed surveillance on trademarks, domain names, corporate names or social networks. With these trace and control tools, we help you restructure the management of your trademark portfolio in an easy and accessible way.

Online trademark audits

The next step consists of performing a trademark audit. It is a crucial step to get a global and transversal view of the potential value of your trademarks and to anticipate risks such as conflicts regarding ownership, the loss of rights on an unused trademark or the expiration of your trademark rights. With thorough online trademark evaluations, we will bring to light potential harmful situations and assess the risks and opportunities in relation with your trademark. Besides, trademark audits become important assets when negotiating licensing or assignment agreements.

Furthermore, the Dreyfus team offers you personalized recommendations to strengthen your trademark rights. The online assessment and promotion services offered by the Dreyfus team will allow you to have an accurate and global overview of your situation, from a legal, commercial and technological perspective.

(Pre)litigation

The Dreyfus law firm assists you with the defense and enhancement of your rights and helps you resolve your disputes efficiently, quickly and amicably. With its detailed knowledge of trademarks in the digital environment, our team helps you settle your disputes online, out-of-court and in a confidential, strategic and efficient manner. Thanks to its know-how and its many clients, the Dreyfus team follows continuously and closely ongoing issues and has an increased vision of current and future risks.

The Dreyfus team will help you successfully defend and enhance your trademark rights and will assist you with the resolution of disputes, infringement actions, problems relating to domain names, as well as during mediation and arbitration procedures. Have you discovered a website that infringes on your trademark? Do you have a French or European Union trademark or an international trademark having effect in France or in the European Union and would you like to file an opposition to an application for registration of a French trademark or an international trademark having effect in France?

Dreyfus & Associates assists you in effectively and rapidly defending your rights. In this regard, we help you introduce an opposition procedure before the INPI to prevent the registration of a trademark that infringes on your prior rights. We also assist you in initiating an out-of-court settlement procedure before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, including the resolution of national and international domain name disputes.

Registration of trademark (INPI)

To register a trademark in France, the procedure is carried out in a dematerialized way on the INPI website. The duration of the registration is 10 years, the same period for each renewal to be made at the office. It is however possible to renew an expired trademark registration within 6 months following the last day of the month of expiration, however a 50% fee surcharge will be required.

How much will it cost to register a trademark with INPI

The INPI website specifies that the cost of registering a trademark with the INPI is 190 euros for one class and 40 euros for each additional class. For the renewal the price is 290 euros for one class and 40 euros per additional class.

The price for filing a trademark with the EUIPO is 850 euros for an electronic filing, plus 50 euros for a second class and 150 euros for any additional classes. For a renewal of a European trademark, it will be necessary to count 850 euros then 50 euros for a second class and 150 euros for all additional classes.

The price for an international trademark application varies depending on the countries that are covered by the application.

Today in France the registration of a trademark is not mandatory, however, not registering a trademark is taking risks. In France, the rights on a trademark are acquired by its registration and not by its use. Thus, the registration of a trademark provides legal protection.

However, it is important to perform prior searches to ensure that the trademark registration is possible. This work can be performed by patent attorneys, which adds a cost but ensures the validity of the trademark registration project.

Where to register your “.au direct” domain name and at what price?

From March 24, 2022, you will be able to simply register new or matching “.au” domain names through participating auDA accredited registrars. Bearing in mind that the rule of supply and demand applies, the registration prices vary between different registrars. It is likely that a potentially popular name is more expensive than an ‘ordinary’ one. Nonetheless, the official administrator of Australia’s .au top level domain (the “auDA”) sets the wholesale price for all .au domain names. Whether you opt for a “com.au”, “net.au” or “.au direct”, the wholesale price will be the same.

What are the requirements?

First of all, you need to prove a verifiable Australian presence. Article 1.4 of the .au Domain Administration Rules provides an exhaustive list of 17 natural and legal persons that are considered to have an ‘Australian presence’. In short it concerns Australian citizens, permanent residents of Australia and organizations and companies registered in Australia. This Australian presence is thus the first requirement for any person or organization who wants to register a “.au direct” domain name.

The second requirement regards the name itself. Although there are no allocation rules for the “.au” namespace, in the sense that you can freely choose any name, this doesn’t mean that there are no restrictions.

First, the name that you would like to register needs to be available. Considering the new namespace will launch in March 2022, the availability is not a problem (yet). But the ‘first come, first served rule’ applies so the risk of unavailability will be something to bear in mind.

Second, the name cannot be mentioned in the « reserved list ». Under the Licensing Rules, you can’t apply for a registration of a word, acronym or abbreviation that is restricted or prohibited under an Australian law or a name or abbreviation of an Australian state or territory, including the word ‘Australia’.

Finally, you can’t register a name that is deemed to pose a risk to the security, stability and integrity of the “.au” and global Domain Name System.

The second requirement consists thus of a negative requirement; you cannot register an unavailable name, nor a so-called reserved name.

How to register “.au direct” domain names?

Provided that the Australian presence and availability requirements are met, you will be able to register any new “.au direct” name via any participating auDA accredited registrar starting from March 24.

Furthermore, provided that these same requirements are met, Australian internet users will also be able to register the exact match of an existing .au domain that you already hold. However, this allocation process is a bit more complex. The .au Domain Administration Rules provide for a “Priority Allocation Process”. This process foresees a six-month “Priory Application Period” – from March 24 until September 20, 2022 – for holders of a “.au” name in another namespace (such as “com.au”, “org.au” or “net.au”) who would like to apply for its exact “.au direct” match.

For example, if you own the domain name “dreyfus.com.au”, you can apply for the registration of “dreyfus.au” within this period via an accredited registrar. If it appears that the requirements are met, you will get a priority status and you will be put on “Priority Hold for the Priority Application Period”. Through this status, you have the first opportunity to register the name which prevents third parties from registering it.

In some cases, there may be more than one applicant for the same “.au direct” domain name. For instance, if you hold the domain name “dreyfus.com.au” and a third party holds the domain name “dreyfus.net.au”, and you both want to register the “dreyfus.au” direct domain name, the “.au direct” exact match will be allocated according to the Priority Allocation Process.

A distinction is made between two priority categories. The first Priority Category regards names that are created on or before the 4^th of February 2018. The second Priority Category regards Names created after the 4^th of February 2018.

Under Article 1.9 of the .au Domain Administration Rules, Category 1 applicants have priority over Category 2 applicants.

In case there are multiple Category 1 applications, the name is allocated on agreement/negotiation between the Category 1 applicants.

Finally, if there are only Category 2 applicants, the name is simply allocated to the applicant with the earliest creation date.

As a final note, registering a “.au direct” domain name does not entail any negative consequences. You can always attempt to register your “.au direct” exact match because it has no consequences on your existing .au domain names. So, if you already own the domain name “dreyfus.com.au” and you want to register “drefyus.au”, the domain name “dreyfus.com.au” will not be affected by this registration and will continue to exist.

On the 24th of March 2022, the new “.au direct” namespace will thus launch in Australia.

This new name space that enables anyone with a verified connection to Australia, such as citizens and permanent residents of Australia and organizations registered in Australia, to register “.au direct” domain names. Instead of registering and using names in the traditional namespaces, it will be possible to opt for simpler and shorter domain names that directly ends with “.au”.

The first possibility is to apply for a registration of a new .au direct names that are not already registered in the .au registry.

The second possibility consist of registering the exact match of existing .au domain names. The allocation of these domain names is regulated by the specific provisions of the “Priority Allocation Process”.

About this topic…

♦.au direct update – .auDA WEBSITE

♦Reverse domain name hijacking

Written by Dreyfus02/02/2022

In 2013, ICANN launched a vast operation to remedy domain name saturation and promote competition by setting up new gTLDs. These new extensions have helped unclog the market for more traditional extensions such as “.com”.

With the next application window expected in 2022, many companies are already showing a strong interest in “.BRAND”, such as Uber, which reportedly announced it at an ICANN virtual meeting (as reported by a GoDaddy registrar).
The personalised extension has many advantages, such as trust, since the company only is able to allow the registration of a domain name in its “. BRAND”. It also shows the willingness of companies to invest in order to enhance their trademarks.

On the other hand, other companies, due to lack of use or for other reasons, such as the restrictions that weigh on any registry, decide to terminate their “.BRAND”. In May, June and July 2021, four companies proceeded to this termination. This is what the recent update of the ICANN website shows:

• The “.SWIFTCOVER” for the company Swiftcover of Axa.
• The “.RMIT” for the company Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
• The “.DABUR” for the company DABUR India Limited
• The “.LIXIL” for LIXIL Group Corporation

In 2012, many big companies applied for their “.BRAND”. It should be noted, however, that this application has a significant cost. In addition to the technical and consulting fees, the amount to apply was US$ 180,000 per application in 2012.

With the challenges raised by the security on the Internet and the obligations that weigh on companies, especially to protect the data of their customers, it is very likely, despite these costs, that the next round will be a real success. Many “.BRAND” are successfully used today, both from a marketing point of view and in terms of the security they provide to Internet users.

About this topic…

♦How to prepare for the next round of applications to the <.mark>?

♦ICANN Summit: the fight against DNS abuse, a GAC priority

Written by Dreyfus14/01/2022

Prepare and prevent, don’t repair and prevent…This saying also applies to trademarks, since fraudulent payment notices are becoming more and more common nowadays.

How is this happening?

Dishonest private companies, scammers, approach trademark applicants directly to ask them to pay certain service fees or other payments that are in fact neither necessary nor legally required.

It is therefore crucial to be vigilant.

Since trademark registration and management are already time-consuming and expensive enough, it goes without saying that paying scammers for their so-called trademark services is unnecessary. You should be extra vigilant when enquiries about trademark procedures do not come directly from your usual counsel.

However, fraud is not always easy to detect and the imagination of fraudsters is endless.

For instance, some fraudsters approach trademark owners directly by e-mail and demand payment of certain expenses, fees or additional charges to obtain trademarks’ registration when these expenses are purely fictitious. The payment notices are often for trademark monitoring services, additional registration services or services related to trademark renewal.

The problem is that trademark owners are very often approached by a so-called official agency, company or institution and sometimes even a so-called public authority or government. They use the same official templates, signatures and stamps as these types of entities and they provide the exact data of the trademark application or registration in question. After all, this kind of information is relatively easy to find online.

Another issue is the cross-border nature of these scams.

It may happen that trademark owners receive a notice from a Russian, Indian or Chinese company. While it is perfectly possible that payment notices from foreign countries are made in good faith, it is always beneficial to carefully check the accuracy and legitimacy of such notices.

Here are our advices.

Firstly, we invite you to check the stage of the proceedings in which your trademark is located. Isn’t it strange to pay fees for the registration or renewal of a trademark if the time limit has not even started or has already expired?

We encourage you to be vigilant. Do not hesitate to ask us questions when you receive documents that do not come from Dreyfus. Indeed, it is always wise to contact your legal adviser before making a payment. Dreyfus is specialised in these matters and is fully aware of the applicable time limits, procedural steps and expenses.

There are also official offices and agencies that can be contacted in the event of a suspicious or misleading trademark notice. For instance, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can be contacted. Although this office does not have the legal authority to prevent companies from engaging in these types of fraudulent practices, the USPTO does assist in the fight against fraudulent trademark notices. The USPTO issues reports and works with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Trademark owners can always file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission. This commission has the power to investigate and even prosecute if, for example, a particular company commits fraudulent business practices on a large scale. Dreyfus can assist you in filing such complaints and prevent you from being entrapped.

Fraudulent trade mark notices are becoming increasingly common. It is important to be very vigilant, to check the applicable time limits, to contact your Trademark Attorney before making any payments. At Dreyfus, we work with trademark offices and official agencies, such as the USPTO, in case of trademark notices that are suspicious or appear to be misleading.

About this topic…

♦ Why is the well-knownness of an earlier trademark not enough to qualify bad faith?

Written by Dreyfus11/01/2022

The 71^st ICANN Summit gave its GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) the competence to take stock of the essential elements of its missions, reflected in its report of June 21, 2021. In the “Issues of Importance to the GAC”, several elements were highlighted.

1. The next round of new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name

Göran Marby, CEO of ICANN, recalled that strengthening competition and improving the opportunities of Internet users to benefit from their own identifiers is part of ICANN’s duty. The ICANN presented the ODP (Operational Design Phase). This is a system that provides information on the operational issues of the project and aims to implement advice to make the procedure more effective.

But on the other side of the coin, there are also fraudsters amongst the beneficiaries. This is the case, for instance, regarding new gTLDs that were launched on the market almost ten years ago (like <.icu> or <.guru>).

2. Addressing the issue of domain name abuse

The issue of DNS abuse remains a flagship issue for the CAG, who describes the problem as a “priority”. DNS abuse is a term that refers to piracy cases where domain names are registered and used for fraudulent purposes such as phishing. The idea of the Framework on Domain Generating Algorithms (DGA) associated with Malware and Botnets was created. The objective of this framework is to place registries at the center of the fight against these abuses, and to encourage them to prevent the blocking of domain names from DGA’s. These DGA’s are algorithms used to generate a very large amount of domain names that can serve as meeting points between control servers and the command, allowing botnets to thrive more easily.

3. Reliability of Data

The GAC highlighted the importance of the correctness and completeness of domain name registration. Data reliability is an important aspect to ensure the prevention of – and fight against DNS abuses. It recalls the obligation of registers and registration offices to verify, validate and correct data. One of the objectives is to respond to the pitfalls of these data in a timely and efficient manner. The GAC specified that this should not only concern compliance with the GDPR but that it should include all information relating to domain names.

4. Accessibility of data

The ODP for Stage 2 of the EPDP has been put on the table. The purpose of this ODP is to inform interested parties on the question whether the SSAD (System for Standardized Access/Disclosure) works in favor of the interests of the ICANN community, especially in view of its impact in terms of costs. For the record, via the SSAD, it is possible to get information about requests that demand to lift the anonymity on certain domain names.

Phase 2A of the EPDP (Accelerated Policy Development Process) was discussed after the release of the EPDP Phase 2A Initial Report on the “Temporary Specification” (which is a new version of the Whois). This report provides guidance on how to publish registration information on companies that is not protected by the GDPR as well as email addresses for those who are anonymized.

5. Consumer protection

Finally, the recommendations of the CCT (Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review) were addressed. Among the recommendations that the GAC would like to see implemented was a pro bono assistance program as well as the recommendation concerning the identification of party chains that are responsible for registering domain names.

The ICANN’s report of June 21, 2021 highlighted several important elements. The fact that new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name engenders both benefices and dangers. It underlined the issue of domain name abuse and the importance of the correctness and completeness of domain name registration data, as well as the importance of accessibility of data and the need for consumer protection.

Dreyfus law firm

About this topic…

♦Attempted reverse domain name hijacking is an abuse of the administrative process

Written by Dreyfus09/07/2021

Reverse domain name hijacking constitutes an abuse of procedure. On this topic, the WIPO issued on April 4, 2021 a decision reminding Complainants of their failings: it was their duty to proceed to relevant checks before initiating the complaint and to build their case properly. The examiner was all the more severe given that Complainants were represented by counsel.

The complaint in question was filed by three applicants.

First Complainant is an Indian company notably specializing in the manufacture and sale of sanitary products and kitchen appliances. First Complainant was originally known as Hindustan Twyfords, but later changed its name to HSIL Ltd. in 2009. Second Complainant, Somany Home Innovation Limited, was incorporated in 2017. It manufactures and sells, among other goods, air and water purifiers, water heaters, air coolers. Like Second Complainant, Third Complainant, Brilloca Ltd, results from the split of First Complainant.

Having detected the registration of the domain names <hsil.com> registered on November 16, 1999 and <shil.com> on December 9, 1999, Complainants filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to request the transfer of the domain names.

Respondent is a UK registered company, established on October 7, 1998, which provides web development services to help small businesses gain visibility on the Internet, initially focusing on the health club and leisure equipment market. In addition to the main site « health-club.net », Respondent has registered a number of short acronymic domain names.

First Complainant owns trademarks for the sign « HSIL », the first of which dates from 2004. Complainants further argue that Somany Home Innovation is widely known by the sign « SHIL », the acronym that corresponds to its corporate name.

First and foremost, the panelist notes that the applicants have not submitted any evidence showing the use of the sign « SHIL » to the point of making it a distinctive identifier for their benefit. Therefore, the latter considers that they are in default concerning the proof of likelihood of confusion between the <shil.com> domain name and an earlier trademark in which they potentially have rights. On the other hand, the likelihood of confusion was recognized for the name <hsil.com>.

Then, regarding the issue of legitimate interest and/or rights in the domain names, the panelist takes into account the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 1999, before the alleged filing and use of Complainants’ « HSIL » and « SHIL » marks. As opposed to Complainants, Respondent has provided evidence to support its claims that the names were used as acronyms for « Sports / Health in London » and « Health / Sports in London ».

Besides, the disputed domain names were registered in 1999, many years before the filing of the HSIL marks and the registration of domain names containing « HSIL ». In addition, the Complainants have no trademark rights for the sign « SHIL ».

Also, Respondent has demonstrated a use of the disputed domain names in connection to a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The complaint is therefore dismissed.

In addition, the panelist found that the complaint constituted reverse domain name hijacking, an attempt to obtain a domain name by artificially proving infringement.

Complainants, who are represented by counsel, should have anticipated the weakness of their argument and the fact that the acronyms « Hsil » and « Shil » could not refer exclusively to them, as alleged in the complaint without any evidence.

The panelist also notes that Complainants tried to make it look like trademarks were rejected in India because of the « well-known status and enormous goodwill » acquired by their earlier marks. This, despite the fact that the defendant has proven that third parties have been able to obtain registration of trademarks for the sign « SHIL » in India.

The panelist also targets Complainants’ representative and denounces an « unfamiliarity with the UDRP » and raises the fact that the latter has listed the registrar as respondent simply because it had allowed the registration of an available domain name, even though it is not in its power to decide whether or not to allow a registration.

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, April 4, 2021, Case No. D2020-3416, HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited v. SHIL Ltd, Brilloca Limited v. GOTW Hostmaster, Get on The Web Limited, India

Written by Dreyfus29/06/2021

On November 22, 2016, at 4:05 p.m. sharp, the Vinci group is the victim of identity theft. Several media receive a false press release reporting a review of Vinci’s consolidated accounts for fiscal year 2015 and the first half of 2016 following alleged accounting embezzlement.

In 2019, the US news agency Bloomberg appealed a decision of the AMF’s sanctions commission. The hearing before the court of appeal will be held this Thursday. Bloomberg was sentenced to 5 million euros for relaying information from a false Vinci press release.

A fake press release from Bloomberg

The American news agency Bloomberg is accused of having disseminated, in 2016, false information about Vinci without having verified it.

On November 22, 2016, at 4:05 p.m. sharp, the Vinci group is the victim of identity theft. Several media receive a false press release reporting a review of Vinci’s consolidated accounts for fiscal year 2015 and the first half of 2016 following alleged accounting embezzlement.

The false statement also indicates that the chief financial officer was fired. Less than a minute later, between 4:06 p.m. and 4:07 p.m., Bloomberg picked up the information and disclosed it on his terminal.

This press release had even been signed with the name of the real person in charge of Vinci’s press relations, while referring to a false cell phone number.

In defense, the defendants point out before the commission that the tone, the absence of spelling errors, the careful layout, the exact references to certain directors of Vinci or to its auditors, the mention of the real spokesperson for Vinci as well as the plausibility of the foot of the press release, which contained a link to unsubscribe from the Vinci mailing list and alerted the recipient to the automated processing of data, mentioning the contact details of the real correspondent Cnil de Vinci , did not differentiate this press release from a real press release established by Vinci.

The domain name issue in the false press release

The only inaccuracies in the false press release: the domain name of the false Vinci site to which the press release referred and the false mobile phone number of the “media contact”.

The fraudulent press release was also received by AFP, which did not follow up after realizing that this document had been posted on a mirror website, very similar to the real site but with a separate address (vinci.group and not vinci.com).

How to protect your domain name?

Domain names represent an essential intangible asset for companies since they allow access to websites related to their activity. Now, protecting the domain names associated with the trademark or the business of the company has become almost as important to the company as the protection of its brands.

In addition, domain names are the preferred medium for cyber-attacks which calls for increased vigilance on the part of owners and Internet users.

Phishing, fake president fraud, identity theft, fake job offers, theft of personal or banking data, whaling… frauds are numerous and are constantly adapting to technological progress;

Fraud is facilitated by the very protective provisions of the GDPR, which prevent the direct identification of the domain name registrant; technical service providers tend to rely upon the provisions of the GDPR and the LCEN to justify their inaction and allow fraud to continue;

There is a great risk of damage to the company’s image and reputation. Such fraud also has a significant financial impact, given the risk of embezzlement and money laundering.

The AMF’s Guide to Periodic Disclosure for Listed Companies (dated June

To protect your domain name from cybersquatters or competitors, it is recommended to also register the domain name as a trademark in addition to the reservation of the domain name.

It is possible, before making a domain name reservation and trademark registration, to check its availability, to avoid conflicts between domain names, trademarks or corporate names.

Domain names are now an integral part of the international economic landscape. Like industrial property rights and traditional distinctive signs, they are instruments of competition and intangible assets of companies. It is of course essential to have it for anyone who wants to exist in a market.

But care must be taken not to come into conflict with one’s competitors by using, even in good faith, distinctive signs close to theirs. Conversely, it is also necessary to enforce its own distinctive signs by not allowing third parties to appropriate signs close to its own in order to offer the same or similar services.

How to mitigate the risks regarding domain names ?

– Proceed to an audit of the corporate trademark and the company’s flagship trademarks among domain names, in order to map the risks;

– Set up a 7/7 watch of the corporate trademark among domain names, and a 7/7 or at least weekly watch on the company’s trademarks dedicated to goods or services;

– Set up watches on social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn;

– Proceed with the preventive registration of domain names in risky extensions (such as .COM, .CO, .CM, .GROUP);

– Take preventive action(s) against potentially dangerous domain names;

– Define procedures and set up a crisis management unit to quickly react to infringements in case of emergency;

– Draft or update the company’s domain name policy (registration procedures, compliance with legal obligations, best practices) to be shared internally and with the company’s service providers and suppliers.

Cyber threats are more numerous and more complex and it has also become increasingly difficult to take action against registrants of disputed domains. More than ever, monitoring is required with the implementation of risk mapping and a defense strategy.

Dreyfus advise you in setting up the appropriate strategy to limit the risks related to domain names and to integrate industrial property assets in your compliance plans.

Written by Dreyfus09/06/2021

La notoriété d’une marque ne suffit pas à garantir le transfert d’un nom de domaine similaire

Rémy Martin & C fait partie du groupe Rémy Cointreau, une grande entreprise de cognac. Fondée en 1724, cette maison est l’un des principaux acteurs de la production et de la fabrication du cognac en France.

Le groupe détient un large portefeuille de la notoriété d’une marque comprenant les éléments verbaux « louis » et « louis xiii » en lien avec son cognac Louis XIII le plus célèbre et le plus cher.

Suite à la détection du nom de domaine < louisthirteen.com >, E. Remy Martin & C a déposé une plainte auprès du Centre d’Arbitrage et de Médiation de l’OMPI, afin d’obtenir le transfert de ce nom de domaine.

Le nom de domaine est composé de « louis » qui est identique à la première partie de la marque et est suivi de « treize ». Un nom de domaine qui consiste en une traduction d’une marque est généralement considéré comme identique ou similaire à cette marque . « Treize » est la traduction littérale en anglais du chiffre romain « xiii », comme l’a reconnu l’expert.

Or, en examinant les différentes pages du site Internet de l’intimé, le panéliste constate que le nom est utilisé pour une véritable offre de produits en marque blanche, notamment des masques de protection contre les bactéries et les virus dans le cadre de la lutte contre le Covid-19. Bien que le Défendeur n’ait pas répondu à la plainte, des mentions légales sont présentes sur le site et une recherche rapide sur Internet des sociétés britanniques montre un enregistrement de la société Louis Thirteen Group Limited en juin 2019, soit 18 mois avant le dépôt de la plainte.

Même si la marque antérieure bénéficie d’une large protection, l’expert précise qu’il n’est pas évident que le Plaignant puisse s’opposer à l’utilisation d’un nom commercial « louis thirtheen » pour des activités aussi différentes des siennes.

La lourde charge de la preuve incombant au Plaignant pour s’opposer à l’usage de la notoriété d’une marque.

Dans l’Union européenne et au Royaume-Uni, le titulaire d’une marque notoirement connue ne peut s’opposer à l’utilisation d’une marque similaire/identique que si l’utilisation par le tiers tire indûment profit de ladite marque ou porte atteinte au caractère distinctif ou à la renommée. de cette marque.

L’expert constate que le Plaignant a manqué à sa charge de la preuve dans la mesure où il existe une possibilité réelle que le nom correspondant au nom de domaine ait été utilisé dans le cadre d’une offre de bonne foi de biens et de services antérieure à la notification du litige.

Dès lors, l’expert considère qu’il n’est pas prouvé que l’intimé n’ait aucun droit ou intérêt légitime sur le nom de domaine. Ainsi, il n’a pas à établir que le nom de domaine a été enregistré et utilisé de mauvaise foi.

La possibilité de saisir la justice reste ouverte

Pour les motifs qui précèdent, la plainte est rejetée. Cependant, l’expert déclare que cette décision n’affecte pas le droit du Plaignant d’intenter une action en contrefaçon de marque contre le Défendeur devant les tribunaux.

Une recherche rapide sur Internet aurait dû permettre au Plaignant d’identifier l’existence de Louis Thirteen Group Limited et de conclure que l’UDRP n’était pas un for approprié pour ce litige, qui devait être abordé de manière globale et non limité au seul nom de domaine. .

Par ailleurs, Louis XIII est le nom d’un roi de France et la marque antérieure n’est donc pas fantaisiste , élément que le panéliste a pu prendre en compte dans son analyse, même s’il ne l’a pas mentionné explicitement.

Written by Dreyfus07/06/2021

On April 1, 2020, a new trademark action nullity or revocation procedure entered into force, with the PACTE law.

This law, transposing European Directive 2015/2436 commonly known as the “Trademark Package”, establishes a new administrative action for trademark invalidity before the National Institute of Intellectual Property (“INPI”).

Since April 2020, it is possible to bring an action for nullity or revocation of a trademark before the INPI, a competence so far reserved for the courts.

The INPI’s e-procedures portal now makes it possible to introduce trademark invalidity or revocation requests. These new provisions entered into force with the PACTE law on April 1, 2020.

The procedure is instructed at the INPI by a team of specialized lawyers. It potentially makes unused trademarks available for new actors to use them, and enables to remove invalid trademarks or trademarks contrary to public order.

Applications for nullity or revocation of a trademark are only made electronically through a simple and fast tool, including online help and a secure payment area.

This administrative procedure replaces the procedure for contesting a trademark in court, which remains possible in certain specific cases, such as for infringement actions.

Who can request the invalidity of the trademark?

In the past, it was necessary to justify an interest in taking action to request the invalidity of a trademark. This interest in acting could, moreover, be strictly assessed.

From now on, when the request is based on an absolute ground of nullity, it is no longer necessary to prove an interest in bringing proceedings.

Absolute grounds for nullity relate to the intrinsic value of the trademark. For example, if the trademark is descriptive of the products it designates (such as “white chocolate” for … white chocolate), then any person can request that it be void, without justifying any damage that would be specific to them.

What are the characteristics of the procedure?

The procedure for nullity or revocation of a trademark opened before the INPI is a written and exclusively electronic procedure, accessible via the INPI e-procedures portal.

This procedure is subject to the adversarial principle, allowing the parties to exchange and confront their arguments several times throughout the procedure. The duration of the procedure is therefore dependent on the will of the parties, up to three contradictory written exchanges can be organized.

Finally, said procedure allows the presentation of oral observations. This hearing, at the request of one of the parties or the INPI, is organized at the end of the written exchanges.

Can we appeal the decision?

The decision is subject to appeal before a court, the appeal being devolutive and suspensive.

The decision of the INPI, like a court decision, can be appealed to the Court of Appeal of the applicant’s domicile.

The Parties will have one month to file an appeal, by electronic means, upon notification of the INPI decision. Some mandatory information are required, otherwise the claim could be deemed inadmissible.

This appeal has a suspensive but also a devolutive effect, which means that the judges will have the obligation to retry the case in its entirety.

During the appeal process, the Parties have three months to hand in their submissions together with all of their substantive claims.

If necessary, a cassation appeal may be lodged subsequently, by the director of the INPI or the Parties.

What is the current state of this new procedure?

This new procedure made it possible to reduce a disparity that existed between France and the European Union, since this option was already offered before the European trademark office EUIPO.

Saving time and money for those who introduce the action but at the same time more risk of seeing your brand attacked if it is vulnerable.

The INPI case law databases show that 131 decisions have since been issued on April 1, 2021 ruling on the revocation or maintenance of a mark and 55 on the invalidity of a mark. It takes about six and a half months for a decision to be rendered.

By its simplicity and speed, the new trademark invalidity action procedure before the INPI helps relieve the congestion in the courts. Thus, decisions can be rendered relatively quickly and above all, more actions will be taken thanks to the limited costs of an administrative procedure.

Benefit from the new nullity and revocation proceedings before the INPI (French Office), Dreyfus can help you!

In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.

Written by Dreyfus28/05/2021

Visual Merchandising (VM) represents all store layout techniques. It is the art of implementing the identity dimension through scenarization of points of sale.

The term Visual Merchandising is born in the United States in the 1950s with the rise of art in business. Andy Warhol made the first storefronts in New York. After the years of the Depression, it was necessary to boost the economy with eye-catching storefronts.

The industry is branded, every brand is unique and represents your business in the market.

It is the art of implementing the identity dimension of a store through a scenarization of spaces. It is a true creation of the company which displays its own identity in its store.

Visual merchandising makes it possible to reconcile commercial efficiency, aesthetics and enhancement of the image of the brand in order to attract customers and retain them. There are different channels to seek legal protection of your investments in visual merchandising.

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with copyright law?

Interior design is likely to be protected by copyright, provided that the criteria of form and originality are met! In the “Ladurée” case, the Paris Court of Appeal acknowledged the originality of the layout: “The elements and spaces created bore the imprint of the author’s personality and in the choice of style, colors and decoration the personality of the author was reflected”.

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with trademark law?

To be protected, a trademark must be distinctive, lawful and available. Thus, the company Apple Inc was able to obtain the registration of its sales spaces as a three-dimensional trademark.

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with unfair competition and free-riding ?

The main act of unfair competition potentially occurring in visual merchandising is confusion / imitation: causing, in the mind of the customer, an assimilation or a similarity between two companies or between their products and services.

In the Zadig Voltaire v. Bérénice case, the company Zadig France based its claim to protect the fittings of its stores on unfair competition.

Parasitism refers to “the set of behaviors by which an economic agent interferes in the wake of another in order to profit, without investing anything, whether its efforts or its know-how”.

What precautions should you take to protect your IP rights?

To protect your IP rights, it is paramount to take several precautions:

* Ensure that confidentiality clauses are included in your contracts;

* Provide for nondisclosure agreements;

* Be vigilant on the terms of transfer of rights between the creator and the company.

For example, the Court of appeal of Paris considered in the Petit Bateau case that the publication by an employee of photographs revealing the new collection of a clothing brand, even on a private Facebook account, constitutes a serious fault justifying the dismissal.

The Court ruled that the employee at the origin of the publication had committed the serious fault of having communicated to third parties confidential information, while its employment contract expressly provided for an obligation of non-disclosure.

In order to protect your Visual merchandising, it is necessary to establish a protection strategy in the real world and in the digital world.

Why bet on the trademark?

This way you obtain a monopoly, which can be renewable indefinitely and which will constitute the pillar in your marketing and sales strategy.

It is important to register the trademark from the genesis of the project. To that end, it will be necessary to determine a limited but suitable territory. Likewise, it is important to think globally and digitally, and to envision the protection of domain names when registering your trademark.

The domain name is an important asset!

Today, intellectual property of which domain names are a part is identified by insurers as one of the top three risks facing businesses.

Domain names in particular serve as vectors for ever more sophisticated and varied frauds. Managing your brand on the internet is not just about filing and renewing, but also building a strategy.

It is important not only to invest in a protection and preventive defense strategy but also to set up appropriate watch services for your brand.

Finally, you must be particularly vigilant about the use that is made of your brand on the Internet by avoiding “bad buzz” that is harmful to your reputation.

As a creation, Visual merchandising is a real intellectual and economic investment that is essential to protect.

Dreyfus & associés

In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.

Written by Dreyfus24/05/2021

In a decision handed down on 23 February 2021, the Paris Court of Appeal offers some guidelines in copyright infringement, recalls some key principles and provides an overview of all the usable means of defense.

In this case, the internationally renowned artist Jeff Koons was condemned for copyright infringement, in solidum with his co-defendants and the Court awarded €190 000 in damages. This amount greatly exceeds the amount awarded in the first instance, where the Court ordered Jeff Koons and his co-defendants to pay €135,000 in damages.

Let’s dive into the facts: in 1988, Jeff Koons started his “Banality” series of works, which consisted of creating three-dimensional objects inspired by various images. One of the works in this series, “Fait d’hiver”, shows a young woman in a fishnet corset, lying in the snow, with a small pig wearing a barrel around its neck.

In November 2014, the Centre Pompidou in Paris hosted a retrospective of Koons’ work, in which several works from the “Banality” series were exhibited, two of which have been subject to infringement lawsuits.

One of the two disputed works is “Fait d’hiver”. The designer of a 1989 advertising campaign for the company Naf-Naf, Frank Davidovici, sued the Centre Pompidou and Jeff Koons, among others, for copyright infringement of the campaign. At that time, the Naf-Naf brand’s Autumn/Winter collection was presented to the general public thanks to a photo of a young woman lying on the snow and accompanied by a pig, wearing a collar reminding one of a Saint Bernard dog.

On November 8, 2018, the Paris Court of First Instance found all the defendants guilty of infringing Frank Davidovici’s economic and moral rights. In their appeal, the defendants then set out all the possible defences in the context of such infringement action.

Was the “fair use” exemption a good idea?

Insofar as Jeff Koons’s work “Fait d’hiver” was conceived in the United States, the artist upheld that United-States law should have applied. To strengthen his argument, he relied on the Rome II Regulation, which seeks to preserve the principle of “lex loc protectionis” about “a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of an intellectual property right”. It would have been a mistake for Jeff Koons not to try to benefit from this Regulation, notably since American law provides for the “fair use” exception, which allows the exclusive rights of an author to be limited, in particular, to allow his work to be parodied (17 U.S.C. §107). But let’s remember that in 1992, Koons lost an action in which he had claimed this exception. At the time, the Court charged him with copyright infringement for his sculpture “String of Puppies”, which was considered a copy, with a few differences, of a photo taken by the American photographer Art Rogers. The judges deemed that the slight differences between the original photograph and the sculpture were insufficient to rule out infringement.

That said, and thus contradicting one of Jeff Koons’s arguments showing the differences between his “Fait d’hiver” and that of Naf-Naf, the Court of Appeal recalls that infringement is not assessed regarding the differences, but rather in terms of the similarities between the works involved.

Not too much of a surprise, the Paris Court of Appeal found that French law applied to “Fait d’hiver” insofar as the copyright infringement took place in France. Hence, the exception of fair use was not applicable in the present case.

Did Frank Davidovici have legal standing?

Koons then claimed that Frank Davidovici lacked legal standing. Indeed, the original photograph was a collective work and therefore the property of Naf-Naf. The evidence provided by the appellants was not enough for the Court of Appeal, which came to the same conclusions as at first instance, namely that the advertising campaign was not a collective work but a collaborative work, in which Frank Davidovici’s contribution could be “individualized”, and that the other authors had assigned their economic rights to him.

On the French five-year limitation period for infringement

The appellants argued that the work had been created more than 20 years before the subpoena (which took place on January 9, 2015), that it had been exhibited since 1995 in a Parisian gallery. In addition, they claimed that Jeff Koons displayed the reproduction on his website where he described it as ‘unmissable to anyone interested in [his] work’ and by “anyone”. Koons targeted the respondent.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument since the respondents were criticising the exhibition at the Centre Pompidou, which had begun in November 214, i.e. two months before the subpoena.

Pleas in law based on the freedom of artistic expression and the parody exception

The appellants invoked Article 10 of the ECHR (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights) to remind them that judges shall not interfere with the artists’ creative freedom or deny their artistic approach. However, this article also states that the artistic freedom of expression includes limitations, and in this case, the latter was legal since it relied upon Article L.122-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code. This article condemns any adaptation or transformation of a work without the consent of its author. Considering that the sculpture uses the dominant elements of the original photograph (the penguins and the pig’s flower necklace being of little relevance) and that it makes no mention of Davidovici’s work, Koons was obviously at fault. There is a very narrow line between inspiration and infringement of earlier work.

The appellants also sought to invoke the parody defence, relying on the definition given by the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) in 2014 in the Deckmyn case, which stated that “the essential characteristics of parody are, first, to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and, secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery“. The Paris Court of Appeal considered here that the humorous purpose was certainly not obvious, insofar as Koons described his “Fait d’hiver” as being “a work on renewal“, the illustration of the “process of self-acceptance“. Besides, according to the Court, there was a gap of almost 30 years between the advertising campaign and the sculpture. This period was so long that the public might not have perceived the parody.

The boundary between free inspiration and art infringement is very narrow, and sometimes difficult for artists to apprehend. Despite the solid defence strategy of Jeff Koons, one must acknowledge that it is essential to obtain prior approval before creating a work that may infringe the rights of another artist.

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 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 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.

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.

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 Dreyfus26/01/2021

Sources: Domain Incite, Free speech, or bad faith? UDRP panels split on Everything.sucks domains, Oct. 22, 2020:

Free speech, or bad faith? UDRP panels split on Everything.sucks domains

Mirapex.sucks, Case n° 103141, 2020-06-29 : https ://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php ?dispute_id=103141
Bioderma.sucks, Case n° 103142, 2020-07-01 : https ://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php ?dispute_id=103142DNS News No. 270, Oct. 2020

The top-level domain name extension <.sucks> was open for registration by ICANN in 2015. At the time, some brands were already concerned about the risk of cybersquatting on these extensions, and the possible damage to the brand image that this could generate. In fact, many domain names that use trademarks known and ending in <.sucks> were born. Very often, these domain names refer to pages where Internet users can complain about the brand in question, whether they are consumers or former employees.

During the past months, the phenomenon has intensified with a lot of reservation numbers, clearly done by the same registrar of the domain name in <.sucks>. Suddenly, new online pages have emerged, with the same structure and bad comments about renowned brands. A system of resale at prices between $199 and $599 is also in place.
The question of the dispute resolution about the <.suck> is complex, since the situation raises issues relating to freedom of expression.

Two recent cases with two opposite outcomes illustrate this complexity. The domain names <mirapex.sucks> and <bioderma.sucks> were both registered by the same registrar and are both the subject of UDRP complaints. In response to these two complaints, the defendant based his argument on freedom of expression. For <mirapex.sucks>, the complaint was unsuccessful, on the contrary, for <bioderma.sucks>, the name transfer was ordered.

In the case of <bioderma.sucks>, the expert had taken into consideration the fact that the registrar didn’t use the domain name for bad comments on the trademark in question but was simply a third party who registered the domain name seeking to resell it. The reseller was a company located in the Turks and Caicos Islands whose activity is the purchase and resale of names in <.sucks>. The latter had no way of verifying if the bad comments were authentic. Especially because those comments seemed to have been added only after the complaint was filed.

On the other hand, in the decision on <mirapex.sucks>, reserved by the same company, the transfer was refused. The expert gave special attention to the nature of the <.sucks> and to the freedom of expression, while underlining the insufficiency of the argumentation of the applicant.
One thing is sure: prevention is better than cure, therefore it would preferable to register a brand in the extension <.sucks>, on a purely defensive basis.

Written by Dreyfus22/01/2021

If Virgin Enterprises Limited (“Virgin”) was notably known by the French public as a megastore on the Champs Elysées, now permanently shut down; the company, on the contrary, is still very active in many different sectors such as travel, under the Virgin Voyages brand, or even in the mobile sector under the Virgin Mobile brand. As we all know, success is often followed by harm. Having detected the registration of domain names by a third party taking over its brands, namely <virgincruisevoyages.com>, <virginmediabiz.com>, <virginmobilewifi.com>, Virgin has filed an UDRP complaint against these names, July 23, 2020.

On the day the complaint was notified, July 27, the name <govirginvoyages.com> was registered and the applicant added it to his complaint. The expert reminds that a complaint can indeed cover several names, if they are registered by the same person or under the same name or under a common control.

In order to accept the request for consolidation, the expert takes in consideration the following elements:
* the names <govirginvoyages.com> and <virgincruisevoyages.com> that refer to identical sites and the same email contact;

* the registrant of the name <govirginvoyages.com> has the same first name as the registrant of of <virgincruisevoyages.com>, <virginmovilewifi.com> and <virginmediabiz.com>.

Thus, it seems possible to add a reserved name to a complaint after the filing.

Subsequently, the expert was able to conclude without difficulty that there was no legitimate interest of the defendant and bad faith. The defendant did not respond to the complaint.

All names resolved to sites copying those of Virgin and two of them, in particular, <virgincruisevoyages.com> and virginmobilewifi.com> were used in the context of fraud, aimed at “obtaining public information for commercial gain”. In addition, the registrar already used, in the past, other domain names related to Virgin’s brands. The expert said that “the use of some of the domain names involved in conducting an e-mail phishing scam is the type of illegal activity that is clearly considered to be the proof of bad faith”. This decision also highlights the need to be vigilant when mail servers – also known as “servers MX” – are set on a domain name. When such servers are set up, the reservee can send to anyb0ody e-mails from an address that includes the domain name, and endanger the company and its consumers; just checking if a website is in place on the names cybersquatted is not enough.

In this case, each single name was associated with a fake site and two of them had in addition a mail server that was carrying an e-mail fraud campaign. Thus, would be preferable to set up adequate surveillance on the company’s brands and to carefully analyze those, which are closest to the brand in order to take the right actions once the registration is detected.

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Oct. 23, 2020, aff. D2020-1921, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Aladin Chidi, NA / Aladin Tg.

Written by Dreyfus01/10/2020

Webinar September 10, 2020 :

Intellectual property questions for a successful digital transition

How to secure and optimize your website? What precautions to take? How to defend your intellectual property rights on the Internet?

When you want to succeed in your digital transition, you have to ask yourself certain questions.

Whether you are thinking of selling online or strengthening your e-commerce, intellectual property is a key element.

Webinar replay

Written by Dreyfus31/08/2020

Operators of online hosting platforms will soon know exactly what responsibility to assume for illegal or hateful content published on these platforms. The current climate seems to be very conducive to clarifying the nature and extent of their liability.

In this respect, two schools of thought clash: for some, it is necessary to impose obligations to control the content published on these platforms, but for others, this would reflect the attribution of a new role to these operators, which has not been given to them on a basic level.

“There would be a risk that platform operators would become judges of online legality and a risk of ‘over-withdrawing’ content stored by them at the request of users of their platforms, to the extent that they also remove legal content,” said Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, who presented his conclusions before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on July 20, referring to request for preliminary ruling a preliminary ruling made by the Bundesgerichtshof, the German Federal Court of Justice, on two disputes brought before the German national courts.

The first dispute (1) was between Frank Peterson, a music producer, and the video-sharing platform YouTube and its parent company Google over the users posting , of several phonograms without Mr. Peterson’s permission, to which he claims to hold rights.

In the second (2), Elsevier Inc, an editorial group, sued Cyando AG, in connection with its operation of the Uploaded hosting and file-sharing platform, over the uploading, again by users without its authorization, of various works to which Elsevier holds exclusive rights.

In said requests for preliminary ruling, it is a question of knowing whether the operator of content platforms such as YouTube, performs acts of communication to the public pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, a directive that was invoked against YouTube.

The answer is negative, according to the Advocate General, who invites the CJEU to bear in mind that the legislator of the Union has specified that the “mere provision of facilities intended to enable or carry out a communication does not in itself constitute a communication within the meaning of [this directive]”. According to the Advocate General, it is, therefore, important to distinguish a person performing the act of “communication to the public”, within the meaning of the Article 3(1) of the Directive 2001/29, from service providers, such as YouTube and Cyando, who, by providing the “facilities” enabling this transmission to take place, act as intermediaries between that person and the public. On the other hand, a service provider goes beyond the role of intermediary when it actively intervenes in the communication to the public – if it selects the content transmitted, or presents it to the public in a different way from that envisaged by the author.

Such a conclusion would lead to the non-application of the Article 3(1) of the Directive 2001/29 to those people facilitating the performance, of unlawful acts of “communication to the public”, by third parties.

Moreover, it is a question of knowing whether the safe harbour – in the case of “provision of an information society service consisting in storing information provided by a recipient of the service” – provided for in the Article 14 of the the Directive on electronic commerce n°2000/31 is in principle accessible to these platforms (according to the Advocate General, it is).

This provision provides that the provider of such a service cannot be held liable for the information that it stores at the request of its users, unless the provider, after becoming aware or conscious of the illicit nature of this information, has not immediately removed or blocked it.

However, according to the Attorney General, by limiting itself to a processing of this information that is neutral with respect to its content without acquiring intellectual control over this content, the provider such as YouTube, cannot be aware of the information it stores at the request of the users of its service.

The CJEU will, therefore, have to rule on these issues in the coming months.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in 2019, the Union legislator adopted the Directive No. 2019/790, not applicable to the facts, on copyright and related rights in the single digital market, modifying in particular the previous Directive of 2001. A new liability regime was introduced in Article 17 for operators of online hosting platforms.

Sources :

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/cp200096fr.pdf

C-682/18 Frank Peterson v Google LLC, YouTube LLC, YouTube Inc., Google Germany GmbH

C-683/18 Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG

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 Dreyfus05/08/2020

Usually, when a legal action is brought in the margins of the UDRP proceeding, the experts refrain from any decision on the merits and invite the Parties to settle their dispute before the court. However, whether or not to make a decision on the merits is left to the discretion of the expert.

Here, the dispute is between Associated Newspapers Limited from the United Kingdom on the one hand, and a natural person from Pakistan, Mr Makhdoom Babar, on the other. Associated Newspapers, the applicant, publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail newspapers. The Applicant claims that in November 2019, each issue of the Daily Mail sold more than one million copies.

The Respondent, Mr. Babar reserved the domain name <dailymailpk.com> on February 22, 2019.

The latter has repeatedly requested an extension of the time limit to file a response to the complaint, referring to the Covid-19pandemic as a justification for this request. Finally, the Respondent did not file a submission on the merits but indicated that it had filed a lawsuit in Pakistan to block the UDRP proceeding. He provided a document mentioning the complaint and indicated that the next hearing would take place on May 22, 2020.

The expert points out that they has the power to either stop the UDRP proceeding or not, when there exists a legal action in relation to the domain name at stake. The expert mentioned that many Panels in this situation refuse to suspend or terminate the procedure to avoid an indefinite delay in the decision. Especially when the legal action was introduced after the UDRP procedure, with the aim of disturbing it.

Following these preliminary remarks, the expert notes that there is no guarantee that the legal action will resolve the domain name issue. In fact, there is nothing in the file to show that the defendants in the legal action have been served with it or that they have agreed to submit to the jurisdiction in question. Furthermore, the court has not taken any action following the alleged hearing on May 22, 2020.

In addition, the action has not been brought to court in Massachusetts, United States, where the Registry Office is located. Thus, the Registrar may not enforce the decision in Pakistan.

Therefore, the expert decides to rule on the complaint and orders the transfer of the domain name to the applicant. To do so, he takes several elements into account. Firstly, the Complainant and the Respondent have already crossed paths in the past, since the Complainant had filed a complaint against them, concerning the domain name <dailymailnews.com>.

Secondly, the site set up by the Respondent on the name <dailymailpk.com> bears strong resemblances to that of the Complainant, to the extent that it cannot be a matter of coincidence alone, but rather of a desire to attract Internet users to its site by suggesting an affiliation with that of the Complainant. Thirdly, no articles have been published on the site since February 24, 2020, the date when the applicant was notified of the complaint. Finally, the expert notes that, in view of the circumstances, the defendant could not have been unaware of the existence of the “DAILY MAIL” trademark, which enjoys a great reputation.

Thus, the legal action does not per se obstruct the UDRP procedure. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in this case the defendant was a proven cybersquatter, at the origin of the legal action, initiated after the filing of the UDRP Complaint and in order to obstruct this procedure. Experts tend to react differently when the legal action precedes the UDRP action and especially when the dispute is between former trading partners. It is therefore necessary to remain vigilant before opting for the UDRP course of action.

Written by Dreyfus31/07/2020

If the Internet did not exist, you or your company would remain safe from public criticism, except for the one’s coming from journalists’ pen, or from economic actors revolving around your activity. The absence of online media, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and search engines, excludes the possibility of gathering people around networks to discuss your business.

Nowadays it is essential to know how to deal with these criticisms, and sometimes, even slander.

It has already been eight years since the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) stated that “websites contribute greatly to improving the public access to news and, in general, to facilitating the communication of information” (Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, ECHR 2012).

However, “on the other hand, the Internet might adversely affect other rights, freedoms and values, such as the respect for private life and secrecy of correspondence, as well asthe dignity of human beings.” (Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine, no. 33014/05 ECHR 2011).

The Court recently reminded that “the right to protection of reputation is a right which, as part of the right to respect for private life, falls within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention”, echoing previous cases concerning defamatory statements in the press (Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007, and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, 21 September 2010).

Nonetheless, although there are many actions to defend oneself when discovering “unlawful” content, such as defamation, libel, denigration or any form of abuse of freedom of expression, what actions should we take against dissemination of online content that is not unlawful, but is, nevertheless, damaging to our reputation, such as negative opinions or online newspaper articles relating to various facts about your experiences, arises?

Clarification of personal data, the right of opposition and the right to be forgotten

According to the french National Commission for Information Technology and Individual liberties (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)), an administrative authority whose role is to ensure respect for personal data, personal data is defined as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (…)”

Therefore, your name and surname are personal data, and with regard to the processing of this data, you have certain rights, such as the right to object or the right to erasure (also the right to be forgotteen).

The right to object

You may object at any time, for instance because of your specific situation, to the processing of personal data, while explaining your reasons, based on legitimate grounds.

In the event of an unsatisfactory response or failure to respond to your request, you may refer the matter to the CNIL.

The right to be forgotten

You have the right to obtain the erasure of your personal data as soon as possible from the person, public authority, company or body processing your data (more commonly known as the “data controller“) in particular where there is no overriding legitimate reason for their processing . This includes in particular the right to dereferencing of links contained on search engines.

The operator of a search engine is in principle obliged, subject to the exceptions provided, to comply with requests for dereferencing of links to web pages containing personal data relating to criminal proceedings or convictions.

Requests for dereferencing from search engines can be made directly online via a corresponding tool. However, it is often necessary to send an official letter to the operators of websites containing harmful articles.

It will then be necessary to argue, for example by demonstrating the prejudice you suffer because of these articles – the cancellation of a professional appointment following the search of your name and surname could be one of them! – or by explaining that a web page mentions a step in a legal procedure that no longer corresponds to your current legal situation.

However, this right to be forgotten is weighed against the necessity of the processing, especially when it pursues a legitimate interest, such as the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information.

Your request may, therefore, be refused if access to such information concerning you is considered strictly necessary for the information of the public. Indeed, according to Article 17 of the GDPR, there are certain situations which prevent the implementation of the right to freedom of expression and information.

In this respect, the controller or the authority seized must in particular take account of various criteria, including the nature of the data in question, their content, their accuracy, the repercussions which their listing is likely to have for the data subject, the notoriety of that person, etc.

In case of refusal of dereferencing or lack of response from the search engine, judicial solutions may be considered.

In sum, possible actions require complete mastering of the legal grounds and to cement your arguments when requesting dereferencing from the data controllers.

Written by Dreyfus30/07/2020

A rticle L 711-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code states that “figurative signs such as (…) arrangements, combinations or shades of colour” may constitute trademarks.

Thus, in order to obtain trademark rights to a colour, the colour must reflect the trademark in the mind of the consumers, i.e., when they see that colour, they think specifically of that trademark.

Despite numerous registrations of colours as trademarks, the French Trademark Office, the INPI rarely accepts those registrations.

The question then arises as to when such marks are admissible.

To do this, let us look at the case law that have marked this colourful saga!

Case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union

In a judgment dated 22 November 2018, the Court stated that “this sign must be distinctive, i.e. it must enable a consumer to identify the commercial origin of the goods or services covered by it in relation to those of competitors. However, a colour is generally perceived by the public as a decorative element, not necessarily as a sign identifying the commercial origin of goods or services. “(CJEU, 22 November 2018, C-578/17).

The judges further specify that one cannot register a colour but a shade or combination of shades which must be recognizable and identified according to a Pantone code, which is an internationally recognized colour code.

Louboutin has obtained trademark protection for its famous red sole. It is specified in the application that the right relates to a certain shade of red connected to a sole.

However, “colour trademark” should not be confused with the use of a colour in a logo. Indeed, in this particular case, one can resort to the registration of a coloured logo without having to resort to the Pantone.

Colour and unfair competition

A distinction must be made between colours that are protected as trademarks and those that are assimilated to the identity of the company. Thus, in the case of a color protected as a trademark, the company will be able to sue the competitor for infringement by demonstrating that there is a risk of confusion for the consumer. In the case of a color assimilated to the identity of the company, there may be a risk of parasitism or unfair competition if a competitor voluntarily decides to use the same colours in order to use them to mislead the consumers.

It is necessary to recall that the notion of “colour trademark” relates to the fact that in order to “be a trademark, colour must be assimilated to a combination of colours or a single colour, filed without shapes and contours”. This principle was laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Libertel judgment of 6 May 2003 and the Heidelberger Bauchemie judgment of 24 June 2004. Thus, a distinction must be made between colour trademarks and figurative trademarks that claim a specific colour shape without a verbal element.

This principle has been taken up in Article 4 of the European Trade Mark Regulation: “Any sign, in particular words, including personal names, or designs, letters, numerals, colours, the shape of goods or of the packaging of goods, or sounds, may constitute trade marks of the European Union, provided that such signs are distinctive …”:

a) to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings ;

b) to be represented in the Register of Trademarks of the Union in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to determine precisely and clearly the subject matter for which protection is granted to their owners. »

This principle was also taken up by the Singapore Treaty in 2006, which states that “it is possible to register trademarks consisting of non-visible signs and thus color or scent marks. “».

The Distinctiveness Criteria

In order to be distinctive, the colour sign must must comply with the principles laid down by the Court, and in particular in its Libertel ruling of 6 May 2003:

(a) it is graphically represented in a clear, accurate, complete, lasting, objective, accessible and intelligible manner. For this purpose, it must be possible to convert this colour by means of an internationally recognised identification code ;

(b) the color sign must make it possible to distinguish the origin of the goods or services which it designates and it must be distinguishable from competing undertakings;

(c) it must be taken into consideration the public interest prevailing in the sector of activity for which the registration of the sign is requested ;

This assessment is made by the judge on the basis of the facts but also on the use that has been made of it.

Cases of counterfeiting

As an example, the infringement by imitation of a monochrome sign was admitted for the colour shade of pink pantone 212 by the High Court of Paris (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) in a dispute concerning the two fuschia pink bands underlining the edges of the decoration of infant milk products between Candia and Blédina.

Similarly, the French Supreme Court upheld the infringement of a red label champagne trademark in a decision opposing Charles Laffitte Société and Pieper Heidsik Company on the grounds that the Court of Appeal, in a reasoned decision, examined the overall impression produced by these trademarks, and characterized the infringement by imitation as provided for in Article L. 713-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

But in a judgment of 27 April 2006, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that the shade of a primary colour, frequently used in the stationery supplies field, is not of a serious nature (Court of Appeal of Versailles, 12th Chamber 1st Section, 27 April 2006).

Conclusion

Thus, it is clear that, while trademark offices and judges accept the possibility of registering a colour as a trade mark and assuming legal protection for it, the validity of such signs remains subject to strict conditions arising from both national and European legislation. This makes it difficult to recognise the validity of such signs. However, the protection of colour as an identity and therefore as a logo is widely accepted. One can thus speak of royal blue for Ikea, or turquoise blue for Tiffany.

It is therefore almost impossible to consider the protection of a colour shade or combination of colours without prior use. The applicant will therefore have to limit the protection sought to specific products or services to increase his chances of protection. The application must expressly indicate the colour reference indicated using an internationally recognized colour code (the Pantone code).

In particular, the applicant must precisely determine the position of the colours.

The protection of a trademark also requires proof of a distinctive character acquired through use. This requirement limits the registration of colours already present on the market and enjoying strong recognition among a relevant public.

The whole difficulty is therefore based on proof of distinctiveness acquired through use.

Written by Dreyfus23/07/2020

The domain name extensions (gTLDs) “.cars”, “.car” and “.auto” are about to be auctioned on July 13, 2020. Launched in 2015, these extensions have been at the forefront of innovation in the domain name and automotive marketing. They have been used around the world by dealerships, startups and major automotive technology companies.

After a five-year partnership, and more than $11 million raised, XYZ, a company offering new domain name options, and Uniregistry, both a registrar and a domain name registry, have jointly decided to divest this investment.

The auction will be conducted by Innovative Auctions, an independent auction consulting firm, and all assets to be auctioned will include the extensions in question, as well as all intellectual property rights, trademarks, social network accounts and high-value domain names such as <electric.car> and <rental.car>, which are currently reserved by Uniregistry.

It should be noted that this is the first gTLD auction in which anyone can participate. Interested parties can contact cars@innovativeauctions.com for more information.

Written by Dreyfus22/07/2020

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, May 7, 2020, No. D2020-0491, Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Whois Privacy Service / Yassine Ahmed / Yassine Cleoo / Yassinee Cleo / Yacin Helaloa / Robert Michel

The companies Crédit industriel et commercial (“CIC”) and Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel (“Crédit Mutuel”), which belong to the same group, jointly filed a UDRP complaint against six defendants, including an anonymous service, following the reservation of 25 domain names. One reproduces the trademark CIC ( ), the others the trademark Crédit Mutuel ( ).

In theory, the UDRP Complaint should only be directed at one defendant. However, a complaint against several defendants may be admissible if it is shown, by corroborating evidence, that the domain names were most likely reserved by the same person or are under common control, despite disparities in the information communicated by the registrants at the time of registration. This is known as “consolidation of the complaint”. Of course, each defendant is given the opportunity to rebut this alleged connection by filing a response in the proceedings.

Here, the expert accepted the applicants’ request for 24 of the 25 domain names in question. Indeed, numerous elements tend to show that these names are under common control:

– they have similar structures: <credit-mutual-online-space-customer-confirmation-mobile.net>, <credit-mutual-service-security.org>, <cic-online-space-customer-confirmationmobile.com>, etc.

. – three defendants have the same first name, except for a few spelling variations: Yassine Cleoo, Yassinee Cleo, Yacin Helaloa. And two of them have almost the same last name: Cleoo / Cleo;

– four defendants mentioned addresses in Madrid, Spain;

– the domain names have been reserved through the same registrar, Amazon Registrar, Inc. ;

– the reservation date is close: December 2019 ;

– all used the same anonymity service (first respondent, namely Whois Privacy Service).

On the other hand, the request for consolidation of the complaint was refused because of the 25th domain, reserved by the sixth defendant. In fact, the expert noted that the information which defines this domain name and its reserved name does not make it possible to establish a link with the other defendants:

– the structure of the domain is different: <creditmutuel.com;

– the reservee has given an address in France and not in Spain;

– the domain name was registered in January 2020 while the other domains were registered in December 2019. Thus, the expert, after analysing the complaint on the merits, agreed to the transfer of the first 24 domain names to the applicants. As for the domain name, they refused to pronounce its transfer, considering that it was not demonstrated that its registrant was linked to the other defendants. They specifies, however, that the applicants may very well file a separate complaint against this domain name if they wish so.

The consolidation of the complaint allows several complainants to file a joint complaint and to target several defendants at the same time or alternatively. When several defendants are involved, concrete elements that lead to the belief that the registrants are related, should be reported. In addition to elements relating to identity, one can take into account the structure of the domain names, the date of registration, the hosting providers and registration of the domain, the page that the domain points to, etc.

This possibility offered to complainants has several beneficial aspects: mutualizing costs, getting around the “trap” of cybersquatters which consists in filling in false data when reserving domain names, not to mention a considerable time saving for both right holders and arbitration centres.

Our commentary of the decision is available in the issue n° 7-8, July 2020, alert 54 of the review Industial Property.

Written by Dreyfus20/07/2020

In a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union from April entretiennent, 2020 Gugler France SA v Gugler GmbH (Case No 736/18), the Tenth Chamber held, in the context of an invalidity action, that there is no likelihood of confusion between a trade mark and an earlier corporate name if, at the time of filing, the companies do in fact maintain economic links, and provided that there is no likelihood of error among the public as to the origin of the designated goods.

As a reminder, the Article L711-4 of the Intellectual Property Code states that it is not possible to register a trademark that could infringe prior rights, and in particular, if there is a likelihood of confusion, distinctive signs such as the company name or corporate name.

Thus, a conflict may arise when a company files as a trademark a sign that is identical to the corporate name of a company operating in the same sector of activity, creating in consequence a likelihood of confusion. The owner of the previous corporate name will then be entitled to act to cancel the trademark.

While the coexistence of a company name with a subsequently registered trademark had already been admitted (decision of the Paris Court of Appeal from February 24, 1999), it had also been affirmed that, if the use of the prior rights infringed their trademark right, the owner could request that the use be limited or prohibited (Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation of November 12, 1992). Therefore, the trademark right could defeat the prior right.

Thus, in case law, there is a certain prevalence of trademark rights over other distinctive signs.

In its decision from April 23 ,2020 Gugler France SA v. Gugler GmbH, the ECJ clarified the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between a trademark and an earlier company name.

The German company Gugler GmbH registered the semi-figurative Community trade mark “GUGLER” on August 25, 2003.

On November 17, 2010, Gugler France filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark, in respect of all the goods and services designated, on the basis of its earlier company name.

The CJEU, seized after an application filed with the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and the filing of an appeal before the General Court of the European Union, confirmed the latter’s decision and dismissed Gugler France’s application for a declaration of invalidity.

In fact, on the day the trademark was registered, there were commercial relations between the parties, Gugler France being the distributor in France of the products manufactured by Gugler GmbH. In addition, Gugler GmbH held shares in the capital of Gugler France.

The Court held that the fact that consumers may believe that the goods and services in question come from companies which are economically linked does not constitute an error as to their origin.

The Court therefore rejects the argument of Gugler France that, in order to avoid the likelihood of confusion, the economic link must exist in a particular sense, namely from the holder of the earlier rights (Gugler France) to the holder of the later rights (Gugler GmbH).

According to the Court, the mere existence of a single point of control within a group in respect of products manufactured by one of them and distributed by another may be sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion as to the commercial origin of those products.

By this solution of the Court, the essential function of a trade mark right, which is the function of guaranteeing the identity of origin of the marked goods or services, is also indirectly recalled. The trade mark thus serves to distinguish the goods or services of one company from those offered by another company. Therefore, in this case, the commercial links between the two parties made it possible to consider that the goods had the same commercial origin.

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 Dreyfus03/07/2020

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, March 10, 2020, No. D2019-3175, Orfeva SARL v. Vianney d’Alançon.

The company Orfeva has specialized for many years in baptism medals. Since 2010, it has been using the domain name ” medailledebapteme.fr ” as the domain name for its official website. Orfeva is also the owner of the French trademark “MEDAILLEDEBAPTEME.FR”.

Orfeva filed a UDRP complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain name <medailledebapteme.com>, claiming that it infringes its rights, and asking for a transfer.

This domain name was initially registered on July 21, 2010 by Mr. de Graaf, legal representative of the applicant, then, due to a non-renewal in 2016 – for reasons not explained – this name fell back into the public domain and was reserved on September 26, 2016 by Mr. Vianney d’Alançon to designate his own website for the sale of jewelry and silverware. Mr. Vianney d’Alançon has been the owner of the French trademark “1000 MEDAILLES DE BAPTEME.FR” since December 2015.

The applicant argued that the defendant registered the disputed domain name with perfect knowledge of the existence and use of its earlier mark. Consequently, it considers that the defendant sought to generate confusion with its earlier mark in order to try to divert consumers to its own internet site, by offering them the same goods on a very similar site. In addition, the applicant states that has filed an applicaion by letter, through its Counsel, for the restitution of the disputed domain name, without receiving a reply from the defendant.

The defendant, for its part, maintains that it purchased the domain name <medailledebapteme.com> because it is descriptive of his products and not in order to disrupt the applicant’s business. He argued that the expression ‘baptismal medal’ in everyday language cannot be the subject of a monopoly, being the generic, necessary and customary designation of baptismal medals in the jewellery sector.. Furthermore, he adds that he replied to the letter from the applicant’s counsel, refusing to uphold his claims. Finally, the defendant argues that there has been no demonstration of customer poaching. In that regard, it states in particular that the applicant’s business is not disrupted by the operation by a third party of the domain name <medaille-de-bapteme.fr> which predates the applicant’s domain name <medaille-de-bapteme.fr>.

The applicant’s position is not followed by the expert who considers that the domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith.

Indeed, the name is descriptive of the Respondent’s activity, which justifies the registration of the domain name. The applicant’s knowledge of prior trade mark rights cannot affect the legitimacy of that registration.

Furthermore, the expert endorses the Respondent’s argument that it was not intended to disrupt the applicant’s business, pointing out that several companies specialising in the sale of christening medals and using very similar domain names coexist peacefully.

The expert concludes that the complaint must be rejected. In addition, he states that there is no evidence or reason to suspect any customer poaching or disruption of the applicant’s business operations. A court of law may rule on this matter, if necessary.

It should therefore be borne in mind that the abandonment of a domain name describing the activity, especially if it includes the highly prized top level domain “.com”, will most certainly be registered by a third party as soon as it falls into the public domain. Indeed, this type of name is generally very coveted, especially because it can enjoy high visibility on search engine results, corresponding to the keywords that Internet users can search for.

The same applies to domain names that reproduce the company’s brand and especially its corporate brand. Even if it is decided to no longer use a name, it may be advisable to keep it as a defensive measure to prevent a third party from taking it over.

Finally, it should be recalled that the parties must be attentive to the arguments they present before the WIPO, at the risk of departing from the UDRP’s legal regime. Unlike the judge, the expert does not have the power to declare a trademark invalid, nor to conduct investigations for unfair competition.

Keywords: generic designation of domain name – bad faith – trademark right – domain name – unfair competition

Written by Dreyfus02/07/2020

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, March 5, 2020, No. D2019-2887, SYMPHONY HOLDINGS LIMITED V. JAIMIE FULLER, FULLER CONSULTANCY F.Z.E.

The first criterion of the UDRP – which generally does not pose any difficulty – consists in the applicant demonstrating that a trademark in which he has rights is recognizable in the disputed domain name.

The text of the UDRP Guidelines, available on the ICANN website, is as follows: “Your domain name is identical to, or confusingly similar (note: potentially confusingly similar) to, a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. It is not clear whether the applicant must simply be the owner of the mark, or whether he must also be the registered owner of that mark.

This point must be considered when reading the case of a Bermudan company Symphony Holdings Limited, against the Swiss defendant Jaimie Fuller of Fuller Consultancy concerningthe domain name <skins.net>

The applicant, Symphony Holdings Limited, claimed rights in the Australian trademark’SKINS.NET’, which is identical to the domain name. However, the Experts noted that the Symphony Holdings Limited did not appear as the owner of the mark in the databases of the Australian Office.

The applicant had submitted a copy of an agreement by which it had acquired a list of assets belonging to SKINS International Trading AG (“SITAG”), the registered owner of the mark.

However, this agreement was found to be insufficient, as the precise list of acquired rights was not provided. It was, therefore, not possible to verify that the trademark in question was part of it. All the more so since the contract specifies that all assets are transferred except for those already transferred in 2012 to a Japanese company.

This might lead to the conclusion that if the applicant had provided the list of the transferred trademarks, then the claimed trademark would have been accepted by the experts. The experts stated that they could have issued a “panel order”, i.e. a request for additional documentation. However, they did not do so because the dispute seemed too complex to be resolved via the UDRP procedure. In fact, at the time of the auction of SITAG’s assets, the defendant was one of the applicant’s competitors.

It should be noted that the Respondent had itself acquired the domain name in question, which belonged to SITAG, through an agreement.

On the one hand, this decision may help to recall a fundamental principle of trade mark law: registrations relating to trade marks should be done, in particular in assignment or licensing cases, in order to avoid being harmed subsequently, in the event of a court action, for example.

On the other hand, the decision also emphasizes that the UDRP procedure is not appropriate for all domain name disputes. It is tailored for disputes between a right holder and a cybersquatter. Commercial disputes between companies have no place here.

Thus, it is necessary to be vigilant with regard to all aspects of the procedure. The question of rights, which may seem elementary, must be perfectly taken care of in that the absence of valid proof of the trademark right will necessarily lead to the failure of the complaint, even if the case is more obvious than the one currently under discussion.

Written by Dreyfus30/06/2020

The whole world’s been in slow motion since the Covid-19 virus spread. Thus, state governments are doing their best to maintain the continuity of the administration despite the implementation of containment measures,. Since an ordinance of March 16, the offices have decided to extend procedural deadlines that expired during this period of health crisis.

Here’s a list of the provisions that offices have put in place in order to allow better management of procedures related to trademarks, as well as patents.

INPI, The National Institute of Intellectual Property

The INPI decided in its order n°2020-32 of March 16, that the deadlines for proceedings relating to patents, trademarks and designs will be extended to 4 months for procedures concerning patents, trademarks and designs. However, the deadlines for priority for international extensions, for payments for patent and supplementary protection certificate filing, which are subject to supranational provisions, have been excluded.

The order adds that “in the event of failure to comply with a deadline, the health crisis will be taken into account when examining the procedures for appealing for restoration or for a forfeiture statement to the INPI. »

It should be noted that the bill put in place by the government was adopted by Parliament on March 2: the aim is to enable the Government to legislate by ordinance in many areas, including that of intellectual property. This ordinance thus includes provisions concerning the extension of the deadlines stemming from the Intellectual Property Code, including those relating to the opposition procedure.

In accordance with the new order dated March 25 (No. 2020-306), the INPI extended the delay of deadlines for procedures concerning trademark oppositions, trademark renewals or design extensions : it allows to benefit from thecorresponding grace period or for the filing of an administrative or judicial appeal.

In this way, it extends the deadlines which expire between March 12th and June 23rd. The statutory deadline for taking action runs until July 23rd if the initial deadline was set for one month, and until August 23rd if it was for two months or more.

The INPI is already planning to extend its deadlines until July. In the weeks to come, it will be necessary to closely monitor the news from the office.

EUIPO, European Union Intellectual Property Office

The Office had stated in its Decision No. EX-20-3 issued on March 16, that all deadlines expiring between 9 March and 30 April 2020 included, would be automatically extended until May 1st, 2020. Since May 1st is a public holiday, the deadlines were therefore extended until May 4, 2020.

EUIPO subsequently explained its decision on March 19. By the expression “all deadlines”, it meant all procedural deadlines, whether fixed by the Office or of a statutory nature. “They are stipulated directly in the Implementing Regulation,” with the exception of the deadlines relating to matters not covered by certain regulations, such as that on the European Union trademark (2017/1001). It is therefore applicable to all procedures, whether for trademarks, patents, renewals or opposition proceedings.

More recently, on April 29, WIPO’s Executive Director issued the Decision No. EX-20-4, extending all deadlines expiring between May 1st and May 17, to May 18, in order to further support and assist users during the COVID-19 pandemic.

WIPO, the International Intellectual Property Organization

In the opinion (No. 7/2020) issued on March 19, WIPO introduced possible remedies for failure to comply with the deadlines under the Madrid system and modalities for the extension of the deadlines when the national offices are closed.

With regard to the international registration of trademarks, WIPO added that the extension of the deadlines is automatic in the event that an IP office is not open to the public. Therefore, if a deadline for a provisional refusal expires on the day an office is closed, it will be extended on the first day following the opening of the office.

The opinion adds that, with regard to trademarks, applicants may request the continuation of the procedure without having to justify themselves, in particular for all matters relating to an international trademark application, a request for registration, a request for modification of a subsequent designation, etc…

WIPO has also recently announced automatic extensions of the deadlines in cases where a national IP office is closed to the public and in the event of disruption in postal or mail services.

USPTO, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

In a press release of March 16 and 19, USPTO had announced that it was waiving the late fees in certain situations for applicants affected by the coronavirus, as well as the requirement of an original handwritten signature in ink for certain documents.

On April 28, USPTO announced an extension of the deadlines up to May 31, 2020. This means that some actions that were due in this period can be postponed to 1 June. The USPTO gives an extension for certain deadlines between March 27 and April 30. This period runs to 30 days from the original deadline.

In order to obtain the extension, applicants or patentees must “submit a declaration that at least one person responsible for the delay has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to office closures, financial problems, inaccessibility of records, illness of a family member, or other similar circumstances. »

In other countries of the world

-The Canadian Intellectual Property Office is extending the deadline to July 6th, 2020.

–The German Patent and Trademark Office affirmed in a statement dated May 11 that the extension of the deadlines will be until June 2.

–UKIPO, the United Kingdom Office declared on May 7, 2020 that all deadlines falling on or posterior to March 24, 2020 (being those interrupted days) will be extended to the following interrupted day. The period of interruption will end on July 29th. This extension applies to most deadlines for patents, trademarks, supplementary protection certificates and designs.

–The Benelux Organisation for Intellectual Property is the most rigid office. Indeed, in a press release dated March 16, it discloses that trademark applications referring to coronavirus will be refused registration. However, in a press release of March 20, it revised their position by saying that “the BOIP will not withdraw any application or procedure because a given deadline has not been met. This also applies to opposition proceedings not filed on time or to payments not made on time”. These measures will be applicable until May 20, 2020, at least.

The WIPO website regularly updates information on the provisions adopted by various intellectual property offices in order to keep abreast of the various communications that offices can make around the world. With the introduction of deconfinement measures in some countries, including France, it will be necessary to closely follow the future news.

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

Written by Dreyfus18/06/2020

With the development of social networks, creativity on Internet expanded to a point that it became almost imposible for an artist or a brandto not have their Instagram or Facebook page. The presence on social networks has become an almost essential prerequisite for the reputation of an artist.

The Terms of use of Instagram, especially popular with photographers for exhibiting their work, provide that users remain as owners of the content they post on the network. However, in several recent cases, photographers have noted their work shared or reposted without being able to oppose.

Therefore, an essential question arises :Do we keep the ownership of the photos we post on social networks ?This question seems to animate the debate between different countries.Inthe US the answer looks negative, while, on the other hand, France seems to be more protective.

Precedents on Instagram : The Richard Prince Case

In 2015, Richard Prince, stylist, painter and photographer chose to expose screenshots of the social network Instagram with different pictures without obteining the author’s agreement. He earned more than 100 000 dollars from the sale of these artworks, and the authors of the original pictures didn’t receive any money for this commercial exploitation.

In the United States, this practice falls under the so-called « Fair use » exceptions which alllow an artist to work from an existing picture and to transform it without infringing the copyrights.

A circumvention of the law: the Mashable case

More recently, the american information website Mashable wanted to publish an article related to the work of ten women photographers. One of them, Stephanie Sinclair, denied Mashable the right of using her artwork. The site therefore bypassed this refusal by using the Instagram network function “embed”, allowing to share content without having to download it. Thus, the image used is only stored on the social network and not on the server of the Mashable website, directly.

The New York Southern District Court, in a judgment given on April 13, 2020, declared that the author of the photographs posted on a public Instagram account could not oppose that an online media integrates them in his articles. In addition, the judge based his decision on the Terms of use of the social network which provide that users grant for each posted image “a non-exclusive right, free of rights, transferable, sublicensable and worldwide“. According to the judge, the integration of an image on a third-party site therefore constitutes a sub-license right.

It is considerated that when a user posts a photo on a public Instagram account, they give their agreement for all use via the « embed » function.

Following this decision, the photographer Stephanie Sinclair said she would appeal.

What about French law on social networks ?

In France, this statement may be attenuated by articles L.131-1and L.131-3of the Intellectual Property Codewhich prohibit the “global transfer of future works” and provide that “the transmission of the rights of the author is subject to the condition that each of the rights transferred is the subject of a separate mention in the deed of transfer and that the area of exploitation of the rights transferred is defined as to its extent and destination, as to the place and as to the duration”.

Based on this, the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (High Court of Paris) has already judged unfair, in the Twitter (2018) and Facebook (2019) cases, clauses similar to that invoked by the American judge concerning Instagram.

In short, while the struggle of artists in the United States to assert their rights on social networks and particularly on Instagram, seems laborious, it should be noted that French law is more protective of authors and artists. To be continued

Dreyfus can assist you in the protection of your rights on social networks in all countries of the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Written by Dreyfus10/06/2020

In honor of the 22nd World Anti-Counterfeiting Day, Dreyfus Law Firm attended a Webinar organized by INDICAM(Istituto di Centromarca per la lotta alla contraffazione) involving directors of various anti-counterfeiting organizations: GACG, EUIPO, UNIFAB, INDICAM, ANDEMAand ACG.

Anti-counterfeiting issues are always of paramount importance. In fact, approximately 5% of imports into the European Union are counterfeit products. The counterfeiting market is very lucrative for counterfeiters: it requires a very low investment for a very high profit. In addition, the risks associated with it are lower.

During the health crisis linked to the Covid19, the sale of counterfeit products increased significantly: masks, hydro-alcoholic gel, medical equipment; and all this to the detriment of the population’s health. This phenomenon was particularly observed on Marketplace platforms, which were forced to invest impressive means to suppress fraudulent advertisements.

Consequently, the question arises: if the platforms are capable of actively combating the sale of counterfeit medical products in times of crisis, why cannot the same be said of other acts of counterfeiting? Cooperation with the platforms should therefore be initiated to this end. European associations are closely following the progress of the Digital Single Act, which should represent an additional opportunity in the protection of rights.

Moreover, during the health crisis, the fight against counterfeiting has mainly been focused on medical products and devices. As a result, many infringements went undetected. For example, only products arriving by air were checked during this period and not products imported via cargo ships. To make things worse, in Belgium, for example, all the police officers whose mission was usually to combat counterfeiting were requisitioned in order to enforce anti-Covid-19 measures.

With the coronavirus, the fight against counterfeiting must therefore be stepped up. One of the challenges for the years to come is to provide consumers with the best possible information. Delphine Safarti-Sobreira, Director of UNIFAB (Union des Fabricants), said that awareness campaigns were already being launched through various media, including television broadcasts and YouTube. The next step will be to convince the government to introduce compulsory education in schools on this subject.

Three elements are essential in order to fight effectively against counterfeiting: an effective law, more information for consumers and an unwavering determination to continue the fight.

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 Dreyfus08/06/2020

Individuals, entrepreneurs, professional url brokers… all are trying to buy and resell domain names with keywords related to the virus. The prices go up to several thousand euros. For example “corona-vaccination.fr” was bought on March 16 by a German developer, who is now offering it for sale for 9,000 euros.

The DomainTools search team began monitoring the terms related to Covid-19 in February 2019. From a slight increase in domain names using the terms “Coronavirus” and “COVID-19” at the begining, to registrations with a significant spike in recent weeks, it is clear that many of them are scams!

Among them, there is a site developed by a private individual offering the user to install an Android application called “CovidLock”, claiming to have a tool for monitoring the epidemic in real time. In reality, it is a ransomware that asks for of $100 Bitcoins. Thanks to a proactive “hunt”, DomainTools detected it within hours of its creation, before it claimed any victims, and was able to obtain the scammer’s Bitcoin wallet.

Many domain names that should be watched closely at the height of the epidemic, are paving the way for resale at hefty prices or for cyber attacks!

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

Source: https://www.domaintools.com/resources/blog/covidlock-mobile-coronavirus-tracking-app-coughs-up-ransomware

Written by Dreyfus12/05/2020

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Jan. 22, 2020, No. D2019-2992, Cyberplay Management Ltd v/ WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc./DIREX NV and Johann Mayer.

The Maltese company Cyberplay Management holds a gaming license for the purpose of operating an online casino. The latter owns the European trademark “Loki”, deposited on January 10, 2017 and registered on 6 September 2017, as well as the domain name <loki.com>, registered in 1992 and currently operated for online casino services. Said Company filed a UDRP Complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain names <lokicasino16.com>, <lokicasino17.com>, <lokicasino18.com>, <lokicasino19.com> and <lokicasino.com>, with the prejudice that they infringe its rights. Indeed, they associate the “Loki” trade mark with the term “casino”, which refers to its activity. The domain name <lokicasino.com> had been registered on May 16, 2016 and the other four domain names on January 11, 2017 (one day after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark,).

At the time the Complaint was filed, the Respondents were using these domain names in connection with an online casino. The Complainant considers that the Respondents registered and used the domain names in bad faith. The Respondents, for their part, claim that they never had knowledge of the applicant and its trademark. In addition, the Respondents have provided several screenshots, taken from the WayBack Machine website databases (archive.org) of the history of the Complinant’s website, showing the latter has never used the domain name <loki.com> for casino activities prior to the current period. For example, in 2006, it referred to a site allowing the user to find all types of events near their location.

The expert ruling on the case concludes that the complaint must be rejected, since the applicant did not provide evidence showing it was the holder of trademark rights for the sign “LOKI” at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The trademark application was filed after the registration of the domain name <lokicasino.com > owned by the Respondents. Furthermore, in regard to the law on unregistered trademarks (right of use), the Complaint does not submit any evidence of use of the sign “LOKI” in connection with the services of an online casino. Thus, it is important to recall that in order to prosper in a UDRP proceeding, it is imperative for a Complainant to submit evidence establishing, in particular, the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Complainant failed to provide such evidence. This decision also shows the growing importance of the archives proposed by WayBack Machine, which the judges now tend to accept as evidence (subject to justifying a bailiff’s report).

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 Dreyfus11/05/2020

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Jan. 30, 2020, No. D2019-2937, Scalpers Fashion, S.L. c/ Dreamissary Hostmaster

The Spanish company Scalpers Fashion is active in the fashion industry. It is the owner of numerous trademarks incorporating the “Scalpers” sign, including the European Union trademark “Scalpers” No. 6748578, registered on September 29, 2008. The company has filed a UDRP complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain name <scalpers.com>, claiming that it infringes its rights. The domain name was registered on September 15, 1997, by the Respondent Dreamissary Hostmaster, who is in fact a natural person, a U.S. citizen and the holder of a substantial number of domain names featuring dictionary words. The domain name at issue was exploited to generate pay-per-click revenues by leading to sponsored links referring to the sale of tickets. At the time the complaint was filed, the domain name in question resolved to a parking page.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent intends to take undue advantage of its reputation in fashion and to disrupt its business. In addition, the Complainant submits that the large sums proposed by the Respondent in various attempts t negotiate are evidence of his bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent allegedly offered initially $150,000 and then $195,000. Finally, the Complainant considers that the Respondent’s bad faith is manifested by the registration of more than 100 domain names, for him to be able to resell them for a profit.

The Respondent contends that he registered and used the domain name <scalpers.com> because of the definition of the word “scalper”: a person who buys tickets at the normal price and then resells them at a high price when demand is high and available seats are scarce. In addition, the latter requires the expert to conclude to reverse domain name hijacking.

The Complainant’s position was not followed by the expert. The expert considers that the domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent had registered the domain name more than 10 years before the Complainant’s alleged date of first use of the “Scalpers” trademark. In such circumstances, there was no basis to conclude that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s mark, which was not in existence at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. As regards the use of ???, the expert also concluded that there was no bad faith, since the Respondent had used the domain name for the meaning of the word “scalpers”. The expert ruling on the case indicates that the complaint should be dismissed. In addition, he stated that the complaint was filed in bad faith by the Complainant, and was intended to deprive the Respondent of ownership of his domain name. Indeed, several facts contribute to the expert’s position: the domain name was registered by the Respondent long before the Complainant owned a trademark right in the Scalpers sign; the UDRP Complaint was filed after two unsuccessful attempts to purchase the domain name from the Respondent; and the Respondent’s counsel notified the Complainant that the complaint should be withdrawn due to the manifest impossibility of establishing bad faith.

The Complainant clearly should have known that the complaint could not succeed. Thus, it should be borne in mind that the UDRP procedure is not a one-way tool. The aggrieved Respondent may attempt to reverse the proceedings to obtain a decision against the Complainant. Here, the lack of chance of success was particularly blatant, as the domain name predates the trademark rights of Scalpers Fashion.

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 Dreyfus06/05/2020

Source: EURid, registry of the <.eu> extension

The United Kingdom parted from the European Union on January 31, 2020. As a result, the United Kingdom and the European Union entered into a transitio period, a period that has been announced to last till December 31, 2020. During this period, UK residents are still entitled to register and renew names in <.eu>.

However, once this period expires, they will no longer be able to register domain names with the <.eu> extension, nor to keep those they already hold, unless they comply with the requirements. The EURID originally detailed a comprehensive plan that was supposed to be implemented from November 1, 2019, the date when the United Kingdom was due to leave the European Union. It will finally apply at the end of the transition period, although no precise deadlines have yet been set. Once the transition period ends, only the following persons are entitled to register domain names in <.eu>: a citizen of the European Union, regardless of his/her place of residence; a natural person who is not a citizen of the Union European but is a resident of a Member State; a company established in the Union; or an organization established in the Union, without prejudice to the application of national law.

Thus, for already registered domain names, registrants will be able to update their contact details in an attempt to maintain their assets. In particular, they will have to indicate a country code of citizenship corresponding to a Member State of the European Union of 27 regardless of their residence or establish an entity legally established in one of the eligible Member States of the European Union of 27 or the EEA. All registrants who do not comply with these eligibility rules will see their domain names cancelles such the domain names will then be available for registration to all.

As non-compliant domain names will be withdrawn, it is appropriate to carry out a thorough analysis of registrants’ domain name portfolios to see whether any of their registrations is at risk.

Written by Dreyfus05/05/2020

A number of national top-level domain name registries such as the English registry Nominet have begun to use artificial intelligence to prevent abusive domain name registrations. Each registry uses its own system to suspend registrations if they believe there is suspicious activity on an IP address or if the identity of the applicant cannot be verified.

Ongoing assessment of the identity of the registrant thus helps reducing domain name infringements.

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 Dreyfus24/04/2020

Domain names appear to be a fertile ground for innovators related to blockchain technology.

Domain names and blockchain meet around the launch of the new extension “.luxe”, which contrary to what one might think was not created for the luxury industry (which already has its extension “.luxury” launched in 2014). The Ethereum foundation, whose aim is to promote blockchain technology, has entered into a partnership with the Minds + Machines (MMX) registry to create a new use for domain names, making “.luxe” the equivalent for cryptocurrency of what a classic extension represents for the IP address.

This association thus makes the IP addresses for the “.luxe” extension more intelligible.

Indeed, holders can link their domain name composed of the “.luxe” extension to their Ethereum account to replace their 40 characters identification number and make it easier to remember and use.

Written by Dreyfus20/04/2020

With the publication of Decree No. 2020-15 adopted for the application of the PACTE law, it is now possible to file provisional patent applications as of July 1, 2020.

What is a Provisional Patent Application ?

A provisional application is a patent application whose registration procedure is simplified since certain filing requirements may be deferred in time. It is a procedure which permits the setting of an earlier filing date.

What is the Objective of a Provisional Application ?

This procedure is intended to allow companies to file patent applications before the French National Institute of Intellectual Property (“INPI”) in a simpler and less costly way. Therefore, it aims to facilitate access to IP protection, especially for start-ups and SMEs. The main objective is to provide a more flexible procedure for registration of patents.

How to File a Provisional Application?

With this Decree, it is possible to file a provisional patent application and defer the submission of the claims, the technical content of the invention and a copy of the prior filings.

On the other hand, the applicant is obliged, when filing the application, to indicate explicitly that this is a provisional application.

After Filing the Provisional Application

Within twelve months of the filing date of the provisional application, the applicant may request that his provisional application be transformed into a “normal” patent application (by completing the above-mentioned requirements that he had previously deferred) or that his application be converted into a utility certificate.

At the end of this period, the provisional patent application is withdrawn. Ultimately, this procedure allows applicants to gain additional time before deciding on the future of their applications.

Payment of the Filing Fees

The applicant must pay the filing fee within one month of the filing date. However, the applicant may pay the fee for the search report within one month of making a request to turn the patent application into a normal one.

This less stringent registration procedure will allow applicants to apply for patents in a more flexible way, under certain conditions. It will render it possible to fix the date of creation of an invention and then to determine what action will be taken later on with regard to its protection.

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 Dreyfus15/04/2020

Webinar : Internet and Compliance (part 1)

The rules of the game have changed,

strategies to protect the company and its leaders.

The legal, regulatory and fiscal constraints (resulting in particular from the Sapin 2 Law, the LCEN or the EU
Directive of 23 October 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers) that weigh on companies are increasingly rigorous. Companies must implement a governance policy capable of minimizing their responsibility and exposure to their customers, shareholders and the competent authorities.

Among the aspects to be considered in the context of this compliance are domain names. While they are an undeniable corporate asset, they are also vectors of risk: phishing, fraud against the president, fake sites, identity theft, forged e-mails, and so on.

In the event of a breach, they can also damage the reputation of the company and its managers, resulting in a loss of customers. It is therefore imperative to put in place the appropriate strategies to anticipate the dangers, react effectively in the event of an attack and ultimately protect the company.

The current situation linked to the coronavirus epidemic is increasing the risks, with the number of frauds increasing considerably while companies are disorganized and vulnerable.

We propose to analyse these issues with you, sharing our experience. In particular, we will be able to answer the following questions:

– What are the obligations of companies with regard to compliance?

– What are the risks to be anticipated?

– What strategies should be implemented to do so?

– What are the control points?

– What levers should be implemented to react effectively in the event of a proven breach?

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2020

As of April 1, 2020, it is now possible to bring actions for cancellation on grounds of invalidity and revocation on grounds of nonuse of trademarks at the French trademark Office –INPI.

Among the new developments resulting from the implementation of European Directive 2015/2436 of December 16, 2015, (known as the “Trademark reform Package”) into French law, the new procedures for the cancellation on grounds of invalidity and revocation on grounds of nonuse of trademarks are those that will undoubtedly change the landscape of intellectual property law in France.

The European directive placed an obligation on member states to create an administrative procedure to bring invalidity and revocation proceedings. The aim of this measure being to facilitate challenges to registrations in order to declutter the trademark register.

In France, since April 1, 2020, these actions can be brought before the French Trademark Office INPI, bringing French trademark law increasingly closer to European law. Until now, only the Court was able to hear these cases. From now on, the competence is shared between some specialized courts and the INPI.

How is this to be done?

The division of competences is set out in Article L.716-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code. With the exception of applications for invalidity based on a prior Copyright, Design right or Personality right (which must be brought before a competent judicial Court), INPI has exclusive jurisdiction for applications for invalidity where no other legal issue arises based on an absolute ground, and applications for invalidity (again where no other legal issue arises) based on the following relative grounds :

– A trademark right

– A corporate name

– An appellation of origin or geographical indication

– The name of a local authority or public entity.

The judicial court has exclusive jurisdiction over counterclaims for invalidity or revocation of rights, applications for invalidity or revocation of rights on any grounds whatsoever where the application is connected with another action falling within its jurisdiction and, finally, applications for invalidity of rights brought as a principal claim on the following relative grounds:

– Copyright

– Design

– Personality rights.

In order to avoid any delaying measures, it is provided that the principle of “res judicata” will apply to such decisions of the Director of INPI and of the judicial court.

The French legislator has gone beyond the provisions of the European Directive, which only requires Member States to confer jurisdiction on the Trademark Offices with respect to certain grounds of invalidity (invalidity based on absolute grounds or on an earlier similar or identical trademark).

Which trademark registration can be challenged?

An application for invalidity or revocation may be filed against a registered French trademark or on the French part of an international trademark.

What is the procedure before the INPI?

Like the new trademark opposition procedure, the invalidity or revocation procedure follows the principle of a fair hearing. Following the examination phase, which starts from the day on which the action was filed, and as soon as the action is considered admissible, the owner has a period of 2 months to submit his observations in the case of an invalidity action or to provide proof of use in a revocation action.

The applicant has then one month to file a response. The parties may make up to three contradictory written exchanges at the end of which, and where appropriate, an oral presentation of the observations may be requested by either party but also requested by the INPI.

Depending on the number of exchanges carried out, this investigation phase may last between two and six months. The INPI then has a maximum period of three months to render its decision.

Thus, the total duration of the procedure should last a maximum of nine months from the date of notification of the action to the adverse party, which is much faster than the legal action hitherto open to the applicant.

A stay of proceedings may be requested jointly by the parties for a period of four months, renewable twice. It may also be suspended at the initiative of the INPI, in particular pending the receipt of information and elements likely to have an impact on the outcome of the dispute or the situation of the parties.

Finally, unlike court proceedings, the applicant need not demonstrate a specific legal interest. This will therefore allow a greater number of actions and give rise to new strategies for the release of rights.

In conclusion, the introduction of these new administrative procedures by the implementation of the “Trademark reform Package” in France provides a fast and inexpensive procedure, against a registered nuisance trademark avoiding the much more restrictive judicial process.

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.

Written by Dreyfus08/04/2020

The Swiss company Blockwords AG, formerly known as Swiss Future Project AG, operates an encryption exchange under the sign SCX, which was registered as a Swiss trademark on December 19, 2017.

The company has filed a UDRP complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for the transfer of the domain name <scx.ch>, alleging, among other things, that it infringes its trademark rights.

This domain name was registered on April 23, 2001 and acquired by the Swiss company in March 2018. In March 2019, the name was transferred to the company SwissClass Trade AG, which subsequently sold it to the Respondent in the same month for more than EUR 60,000.

The Swiss company claims that a fraud was committed when the domain name <scx.ch> was transferred to SwissClass Trade AG due to the absence of two signatures from Blockworks AG which would have made the transfer legal.

In addition, it considers that the transfer of the domain name is the result of a mismanagement on the part of a former member of the board of directors. Ultimately, the complainant fears misuse of the domain name by the Respondent although the latter has not changed the services offered on the website in question, which remain those of the Complainant.

The Respondent explains that it is incomprehensible that the Complainant would want to recover the domain name. Indeed, the Complainant sold the domain name to SwissClass Trade AG, which was free to resell it to the Respondent at a later date. Therefore, the Respondent believes that it was not at fault and that the issue is between the Complainant’s management and SwissClass Trade AG and not between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant’s position is not supported by the expert who believes that there was no fraud in the sale and transfer of the domain name to SwissClass Trade AG since the sale was signed by two legal representatives of the Complainant’s company. Therefore, the applicant cannot both sell its domain name and subsequently request its transfer. Furthermore, the expert did not accept the argument of mismanagement by one of the former members of the company’s board of directors, due to insufficient evidence.

The expert acknowledges, however, that the situation raises some questions: why did the Respondent purchase this domain name for more than 60,000 euros and what was its intention, even though it could immediately see that the name referred to a third party’s site?

The expert concludes that the complaint should be rejected. Due to the complex facts of the case, he is of the opinion that a judicial procedure would be more appropriate to gather the various pieces of evidence and to rule on them.

This scenario once again illustrates two problems. The first concerns the internal management of domain names: optimal security must always be ensured so that there is no risk of losing control of the names. The second issue related to the fact that UDRP is not an appropriate forum for all disputes. In the present case, it seemed clearly impossible to resolve the dispute between the parties without ruling both on the relationship between Blockwords AG and SwissClasse Trade AG and between Swiss Classe Trade AG and the Respondent.

Written by Dreyfus07/04/2020

The CJEU rendered a crucial decision in its recent Intas caseon the maintenance of Intellectual Property rights. According to the Court, it is not imperative that a European Union (EU) trademark be used in a substantial part of the EU. On the contrary, its use in a single Member State could be enough to prove genuine use.

In the matter before the CJEU for the mentioned decision, the claimant filed a trademark application before the EUIPOconsisting of the sign “INTAS” and designating goods in classes 5 and 10.

The defendant subsequently filed an opposition to this application claiming that it was similar to two of its earlier trademark registrations which both consist of the sign “INDAS” and cover goods in the same classes.

The claimant requested proof of use of the earlier trademarks. The defendant duly submitted this evidence and its opposition was accepted by the EUIPO on this basis. The claimant proceeded to appeal the decision before the EUIPO, but its appeal was dismissed. Finally, the matter was brought before the CJEU.

The territorial scope for genuine use

The CJEU examined the question of whether proof of use submitted for only one Member State for the use of an EU trademark was sufficient to support its genuine use pursuant to Article 47(2) of the EU TM Regulation.

Interestingly, the CJEU rejectedthe argument that the territorial scope of the use of an EU trademark cannot be limitedto the territory of a single Member State. The Court also rejected the argument that the genuine use of an EU trademark necessitates that the trademark be used in a substantial part of the EU.

Yet, the CJEU still admits that it is reasonable to expect that an EU trademark shall be put to use in a wider area than the territory of one Member State to show its genuine use. However, the Court underlines that it is not always imperativethat the trademark be put to use in an extensive geographic area because evaluation of genuine use is an overall assessment. It depends on all the characteristics of the related goods or service, and not only on the geographical scope of the use.

The CJEU accepts that, in certain cases, the market for the goods or services in the scope of an EU trademark can be restricted to the territory of only one Member State. In such a case, proving serious use of the EU trademark within that State may satisfy the conditions for genuine use.

Assessment of genuine use

The CJEU holds that it is impossible to determine, a priori, a certain territorial scope when assessing if the use of an EU trademark is genuine or not. Rather, an EU trademark is deemed to be genuinely usedwhere it is used in accordance with :

– its essential function of designating origin for the related goods or services ;

– the objective of maintaining or creating market sharesin the EU.

When evaluating genuine use, the following factors should be taken into account: the characteristics of the relevant market; the nature of the goods or services within the scope of the trademark; and the scale, territorial extent, regularity and frequency of use.

Impact of the Decision

This is an important interpretation made by the CJEU affecting the burden of proof when it comes to showing the genuine use of an EU trademark. The CJEU clearly sets forth that the territorial scope is only one of several factors to consider when assessing whether the trademark is put to genuine use or not.

This does not mean that the territorial extension of the trademark’s use is not important at all. However, the CJEU affirms that the geographical extension of the trademark’s use is not the only factorto take into account. This assessment depends on all the facts and circumstances relevant in determining if the commercial use of the trademark creates or maintains market sharesfor the concerned goods or services.

Consequently, the CJEU held that the assessment of whether the use of a trademark is genuine or not is an overall assessment. The territorial scope of the use is only one factor in this assessment, amongst the other factors mentioned in this article. This interpretation will probably lead to changes in the strict perception that the genuine useof an EU trademark cannot be proven with showing its use in one single Member State. It will soften the burden of proof on the trademark owners.

Written by Dreyfus06/04/2020

Dreyfus & associés, in association with INTA, had the pleasure of organizing a breakfast debate last February.

The theme of the breakfast debate was the following:

“Resolving IP disputes through Mediation in France“.

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution on the rise in different fields of law, notably in intellectual property law. This alternative dispute resolution is an efficient mechanism to settle disputes. In the long term, resorting to mediation in intellectual property law might encourage parties to maintain or create business relationships (licensing, distribution contract, etc).

We had the opportunity to debate on:

– What are the pros and cons of mediation relating to intellectual property disputes?

– What are the obstacles to mediation for IP disputes?

– What is the process for mediation?

– Who is the mediator?

– How much does it cost?

– Future of mediation in intellectual property law

The event featured Rémi Garros-Quinn, a Legal Case Manager at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, and Berengère Clady, Case Manager – Head of ADR Department, at the Centre for Mediation and Arbitration of Paris (CMAP). It was hosted by local IP law firm Dreyfus & Associés.

Find here the note published in INTA Bulletin.

Written by Dreyfus19/03/2020

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.

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Sept. 2, 2019, No. D2019-1638, Great American Hotel Group c/ Domains By Proxy, LLC / R Greene

Written by Dreyfus13/03/2020

While certain geographical names may, by exception, benefit from protection within the meaning of the UDRP rules, it should be remembered that they must be perceived as a trademark or service mark over which the applicant has rights. However, the mere use of a geographical name to identify certain goods and services as a territorial entity is not sufficient to demonstrate rights in a trademark or service mark within the meaning of the Guidelines, as the pannelist rightly pointed out in the present Decision.

In this case, the geographical name Solothurn (‘Soleure’ in French), corresponding to a city in Switzerland, was reproduced in its entirety in the domain name <solothurn.com>. It was registered in 1997 and has not been used since except to redirect to a “pay-per-click” page.

The applicants, the City of Solothurn and two associations under Swiss law promoting mainly tourism and unsurprisingly showing a strong interest in the domain name <solothurn.com>, claimed an unregistered trademark right on the sign “Solothurn”, which has been used extensively over the years. They also claimed protection of the name as “trademark-like” within the meaning of the Swiss law on unfair competition.

In this regard, they provided several documents attesting to the use of this geographical name by tourists since 1890 and its recognition as such. The applicants inferred that the use of the sign “Solothurn” constituted a trademark used to identify tourism and other related services. They also cited several decisions of the centre concerning geographical names, which are far from having argued in their favour.

The defendant, domiciled in the United States and known for his activities related to domains specializing in “geographical” domain names, had put the domain name <solothurn.com> up for sale. The defendant cited numerous decisions on how geographical names should be assessed (including a decision about the name <rouen.com>) and on the need to fulfill the function of a trade-mark.

Faced with this case and the question of whether the applicants could validly claim an unregistered trademark right in the name “Solothurn”, the panellists carried out a meticulous examination of the case law of the decisions of the WIPO panellists (overview) in the field of geographical names.

In particular, they recalled that according to the overview, “geographical terms used only in their ordinary geographical sense, except when registered as trademarks, do not, as such, provide standing to act in UDRP proceedings”. They also noted that in UDRP matters, it has generally been difficult for affiliates or entities responsible for a geographical territory to demonstrate trademark rights over that geographical name. However, the panellists noted that the decisions cited by the applicants all acknowledged that the geographical name was used in a purely descriptive way of a geographical location and not as a trademark.

On the other hand, they took note of the fact that some panellists have indicated that an unregistered trademark right in a geographical name may be granted to an official authority in exceptional circumstances. The circumstances in question cover the increasingly rare assumption that the geographical name would be used in connection with products and services but without any connection to the geographical location to which it corresponds. The idea is that the trade name should not generate an association with a geographical location in the minds of consumers, but rather an association with products and services, as the main function of the brand requires. For example, we can mention the products of the Ushuaïa brand, unrelated to Tierra del Fuego.

In the present case, the panellists noted that the applicants had not provided any proof of use of the name “Solothurn” in connection with products and services beyond those provided by the City of Switzerland. On the contrary, the applicants merely pointed out the use of the name “Solothurn” in connection with the name of the city of Switzerland and the tourist activities offered there. Consequently, the panellists could not validly conclude that the applicants had established that they had rights in the unregistered Solothurn trademark.

The panelist added that the applicants could not rely on the protection of this name as “trademark-like” within the meaning of the Swiss law on unfair competition insofar as Article 4.a. (i) of the Guidelines expressly refers to the “trade or service mark”.

Finally, the complaint was rejected as the applicants had not provided proof of trademark rights. However, this decision seems to be qualified by the panellists, who point out that it is a decision rendered under the UDRP principles, adapted to disputes between registrants and trademark owners whereas the solution could have been different under Swiss law and in matters of unfair competition.

The “morality” of this decision is not new; the UDRP procedure is not suitable for all disputes involving domain names and should not be systematically preferred to legal proceedings, even if it does have the advantage of being faster and less costly.

WIPO WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, July 25, 2019, No. D2019-1164, Einwohnergemeinde Solothurn, Verein “Region Solothurn Tourismus”, Verein “Katon Solothurn Tourismus” c/ M.A. Stenzel,

Written by Dreyfus10/03/2020

Written by Dreyfus20/02/2020

Opposition is a crucial procedure to ensure the protection of trademarks. It is a way to solve potential disputes quickly, simply and with reasonable costs and time limits.

Following the transposition of the « Trademark reform Package » into French law, modifications were made to the opposition procedure, ensuring right holders a broader protection against the infringement of their rights.

The first major change is the expansion of prior rights that can serve as the basis for the opposition before the French Trademark office. So far, it has only been possible to file an opposition on the basis of a prior trademark application, a prior registered or well-known trademark in the sense of article 6bis of the Paris Convention; an appellation of origin or a protected geographical indication; the name, the reputation or the image of a territorial collectivity.

From now on, article L712-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, modified by the ordinance of November 13, 2019, allows for the opposition of the registration of a trademark on the basis of :

a prior trademark (French, of the European Union, or international designating France or the European Union; a well-known trademark; a trademark that enjoys repute in France or, in the case of a European trademark, a reputation in the European Union, subject to certain conditions);

a company name or a corporate name if there is a risk of confusion in the mind of the public,

a trade name, commercial sign or a domain name, the scope of which is not only local if there is a risk of confusion in the mind of the public,

an appellation of origin or a protected geographical indication,

the name of a territorial collectivity or the name of a public establishment for inter-municipal cooperation,

the name of a public entity if there is a risk of confusion in the mind of the public.

This new legal provision also makes it possible for the opponent to invoke, if need be, several rights to form the opposition.

The second important transformation concerns the opposition process.

As in the former procedure, the opponent has a 2 month deadline from the date of publication of the trademark application to file an opposition. However, they now have an additional month to present their observation as well as the documents necessary to prove the existence and the scope of their rights. It will be qualified, firstly, as a “formal” opposition, as in the procedure before the EUIPO, until the statement of case on the merits is filed and, secondly, in the event that the Parties have not settled their dispute amicably in the meantime.

The adversarial phase of the opposition, during which the Parties exchange documents and their arguments in writing, subsequently begins. The parties may request an oral hearing at this time. However, no new pleas or documents may be presented during the hearing.

Depending on the number of exchanges between the Parties, this first phase of investigation may last anywhere between 6 months and a year. At the end of this period, the director of the French office must render a decision within 3 months.

The changes made by the transposition of the European directive into French law provide greater protection for rights holders. This new procedure is more precise because it has been limited by the stipulation of short and non-extendable deadlines. Furthermore, it makes it possible to base the opposition on a larger number of prior rights, thus putting the protection of holders at the forefront of this procedure.

This new opposition system applies to all trademark applications filed from December 11, 2019.

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

Written by Dreyfus01/10/2019

The Federal Bar Association, in collaboration with the French American Bar Association, is organizing the 2019 Fashion Law and Innovation Conference. This event will take place on Friday, October 4 at 8:30am at the Maison du Barreau in Paris.

Programming will feature a notable group of law experts and industry representatives who will discuss recent developments and current challenges from both the French and US perspective.

Nathalie Dreyfus will speak at 9am for a conference about The Five Senses: The growth of non-traditional brands in the fashion industry.

For more information and registration, please click here.

*Note that this conference is organized in collaboration with the French American Bar Association so it will be in English.

Information

Where: Maison du Barreau, 2 Rue de Harlay, 75001 Paris

When: October 4th, 8 :30am – 12 :30pm

Written by Dreyfus11/09/2019

The WHOIS protocol now appears to be outdated due to the evolution of technical requirements in the digital era. Indeed, this tool, provided by registrars, is inter alia not capable of working with either encoding or with non-latin characters. Consequently, since 2015, ICANN in collaboration with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IEFT) has been working on the replacement of WHOIS through the RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol), in compliance with the Temporary Specifications and the GDPR.

Like WHOIS, the RDAP provides registration data, although its implementation is different since it allows standardization, security data access and enquire response formats. As a result, it will be possible to search all the registration data available from various registrars, unlike WHOIS that is limited to the database being searched. It also takes into account the internationalisation of domain names.

The possibility of granting different accesses to the registration data is being considered. For instance, access for anonymous users could be limited whereas authenticated users could have full access to all data.

While some elements still have to be worked out, registrars are required to implement the RDAP service prior to August 26, 2019.

This brief was published in the July-August 2019 issue of the French magazine “Propriété industrielle”.

Written by Dreyfus09/09/2019

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, March 11, 2019, No. D2019-0035, Pharnext versus Wang Bo, Xiang Rong (Shanghai) Sheng Wu Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si

On numerous occasions, we have noticed that even those complainants who are represented in UDRP proceedings, could have been better informed about the nature and extent of the rights on which the respondent may rely. Detailed research is an essential prerequisite to filing a complaint, otherwise, the success of the complaint is jeopardised.

On January 7, 2019, the French company Pharnext, whose main activity is in the biopharmaceutical industry, filed a UDRP complaint seeking the transfer of the name <pharnex.com>, which had been registered by a Chinese company.

The complainant contended that it had trademark rights in PHARNEXT through ownership of its “PHARNEXT” logo protected by an international trademark since 2013 and used on its website located at www.pharnext.com.

The respondent had registered the domain name <pharnex.com> in October 2017. At the time the complaint was submitted, the disputed name connected to a website in both English and Chinese indicating that PHARNEX is a platform to help medical companies set up operations in China.

The complainant claimed that the respondent must have had the “PHARNEXT” trademark in mind when registering the domain name, because in May 2017, its partnership with Tasly, one of the most recognised pharmaceutical companies in China, had been announced. The complainant also said there is no plausible explanation for the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. It also claimed to have done searches which revealed no evidence that the respondent had any right or legitimate interest in the name.

However, the respondent, Xian Rong (Shanghai), firstly, proved that it had a licence on the “PHARNEXT” trademark for financial services, and secondly pointed to its active use of the trademark since December 2017. Although the ownership of a trademark does not automatically confer a legitimate interest or rights on the respondent, the complainant bears the burden of proof throughout the complaint.

In the present case, the expert was “convinced that the PHARNEXT trademark was registered in good faith”. She further noted that the domain name was used, before the filing of the complaint, in connection with a genuine offer of goods and services. Hence, though the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, the complaint could not be accepted.

The expert stressed that “her findings are made in the limited boundaries of the UDRP; any matters outside the scope of the Policy may be handled by the parties in a relevant court of law.. Quite simply, the complainant had not proved that the disputed domain name had been registered and used in bad faith.

This decision once again highlights that it is essential to carry out research on all aspects of the proposed complaint; including the respondent and the sign from which the disputed domain name has been derived. For example, researching the “PHARNEX” sign on the Chinese databases would have made the complainant aware of the existence of the word mark “PHARNEX” on which the respondent relied. This would have alerted the complainant to a potential weakness in its case and enabled it to consider alternative strategies. It is essential to think of every possible defense a respondent may raise and be prepared to counter any such defense.

This brief was published in the July-August 2019 issue of the French magazine “Propriété industrielle”.

Written by Dreyfus04/09/2019

The Asian giant – hitherto invisible – has become one of the countries where most patent and trademark applications are filed. It is not surprising that companies from all over the world want to have a presence in China. However, several factors must be taken into account when setting up these companies’ such as the features that must be contained in their corporate names.

One of the first steps for foreign companies is to decide on a suitable name for the Chinese market. The main pieces of legislation governing this issue are the Regulations on Registration and Management of Enterprises Name and the Implementation Measures on Registration and Administration of Enterprise Names, which detail how the name of Chinese companies should be structured and what information should be included.

In China, company names must be composed, according to these regulations in a specific format, and must be composed of i) Administrative Division, ii) Trade name, iii) Industry and iv) Organizational form, except as otherwise provided by law

Other regulations restrict the content of names, prohibiting the use of content that could mislead consumers or jeopardize free competition, or injure or contradict national unity, politics, social ethics, culture, or religion. Special characters, such as Arabic numerals, foreign symbols or alphabets, are not allowed, and certain words such as “China,” “Chinese,” “national,” “State,” or “international” may only be used on rare occasions.

In certain circumstances, a company could use an enterprise name without including the administrative division. This may be by the approval by the State Council, or when the share capital value is at least CNY 50 million. Such authorization can be granted by the State Administration for Market Regulation.

It seems clear that the strongest feature in choosing a company name in China is the trade name. Similar company names can co-exist, unless exactly the same trademark has previously been registered, in which case a trade name challenge could be attempted by the trademark’s proprietor.

The JINGKE Case illustrates the conflicts that may arise between trade names and trademarks.

On November 29th, 2010, Shanghai Precision & Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. (PI) sued Shanghai Jingxue Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. (Jingxue) and Chengdu Kexi Complete Sets of Instruments Co., Ltd. (Kexi) in Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court.

Shanghai Precision & Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. complained that the defendant maliciously registered and used plaintiff’s business name in the abbreviated form of “精科” (JINGKE in Chinese).

They said that because it is well known in the industry, as a trademark; its use by the defendants constituted acts of unfair competition causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff’s legitimate interests.

They therefore asked for injunctive and compensatory relief against the two defendants.

The defendants contended that Kexi is the owner of the registered trademark JINGKE, and that its use of the trademark is protected under the law. They also counterclaimed against plaintiff for trademark infringement in using SHANGHAI JINGKE in connection with its products and packaging.

The court found that before the mark JINGKE was applied for registration, “Shanghai Jingke” and “Jingke” had been used as abbreviated business names, attaining a degree of notoriety and becoming in effect plaintiff’s trade names, and therefore deserving protection as such.

Accordingly, the Court held:

Firstly, that the defendant Kexi,by securing the trademark registration of, and by using plaintiff’s abbreviated trade name JINGKE (already in use), and secondly, that the defendant Jingxue by using the JINGKE mark on its products via third parties by permission of defendant Kexi, both infringed plaintiff’s rights to its corporate business name, and were thus guilty of unfair competition.

The court then granted an injunction against the defendants for unfair competition, and awarded damages.

Both defendants appealed to Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. The Court of Appeal held that abbreviated business names can be considered to be corporate names if they have gained some notoriety in the marketplace, become well-known to the relevant sectors of the public, and have in fact been used as trade names.

When others later use such well-known abbreviated business names without permission in such a way as to be likely to cause confusion in the market among relevant sections of the public Art.5, Cl. 3 of the Unfair Competition Law governing the legal protection of the corporate names shall apply. For this reason, the appeal was rejected and the judgment of the court below was confirmed.

A more recent case, which also dealt with such conflicts, arose between Chengdu Huamei and Shanghai Huamei. In 2017, Chengdu Huamei sued Shanghai Huamei, on the grounds that: (1) Shanghai Huamei had been using the trade name ‘Huamei’ without Chengdu Huamei’s authorisation, thus committing acts of unfair competition; and (2) Shanghai Huamei had infringed Chengdu Huamei’s exclusive trade mark rights by frequently and prominently using phrases such as ‘Huamei’, ‘Shanghai Huamei’, ‘Huamei Dental’ and ‘Huamei Plastics’ in their business premises. In this case, however, he decision of first instance, subsequently upheld on appeal was that:

“Merely having an identical trade name would not lead to the conclusion that Shanghai Huamei committed unfair competition or acted as a free rider. Secondly, most of the uses of ‘Huamei’ or ‘Shanghai Huamei’ for publicity purposes fell within the scope of fair use of Shanghai Huamei’s own trade name. However, when it came to the use of the signs containing ‘Huamei Dental’ ‘Huamei Plastics’ and ‘Shanghai Huamei’ that were similar to the trade marks at issue, the court found that it could easily cause confusion among members of the public and thus amounted to trade mark infringement”

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 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.

Written by Dreyfus30/08/2019

Cyber-attacks are on the rise, and they are becoming more sophisticated. Our current business model is globally interconnected; commercial transactions and even social life transcend national borders. Consequently, our vulnerability to cyber-attacks has been increased, however, the competences of the cyber security and police authorities, as well as political responses, are predominantly national.

This situation has made European authorities aware of the need to deal with these threats in an effective and coordinated way, relying their actions on policies dealing specifically with cybersecurity within the European Union. By means, the aim is thus to improve cooperation, exchange of information and coordination between the Member States and the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.

The European Commission, as part of the Digital Single Market Strategy, has approved Regulation No. (EU) 2019/881, on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on certification of information and communications technology cybersecurity, which came into force on June 27, 2019.

This new regulation has two main objectives. On the one hand, to give ENISA (the European Agency for Cybersecurity, now named the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) a greater role in the field of cybersecurity, establishing a series of objectives and tasks. On the other hand, the creation of a common certification framework at European level, with the aim of guaranteeing an adequate level of cybersecurity of ICT products, services and processes in the EU, avoiding the fragmentation of the internal market.

Concerning the first objective, the first substantive point of the Regulation is to give more powers to the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). It will now have a permanent mandate facilitating the exercise of the new functions assumed, one of which is to increase cooperation on cybersecurity within the Union, for example in cases of large-scale cyberattacks or cross-border crises. This strengthening is also reflected in the economic resources for ENISA, increasing from 11 to 23 million euros over a period of five years.

It is noteworthy that European regulation focuses on users by addressing concepts such as users’ awareness, and the application of good practices online. Both public bodies and private stakeholders will receive recommendations on safe configurations and maintenance of their devices, and the availability and duration of updates, as well as the perceived risks.

With regard to the second objective, the regulation creates a framework for European Cybersecurity Certificates for products, processes and services that will be valid throughout the EU. It is the first EU legislation on the internal market to take up the challenge of enhancing the security of connected products, Internet of Things devices and critical infrastructure through such certificates.

The creation of the cybersecurity certification framework incorporates security features in the early stages of their technical design and development (security by design). It also enables their users to ascertain the level of security assurance, and ensures that these security features are independently verified.

As to the second objective of the regulation, the certification framework will provide EU-wide certification schemes as a comprehensive set of rules, technical requirements, standards and procedures. This will be based on agreement at EU level for the evaluation of the security properties of a specific ICT-based product or service, for instance, smart cards. This will certify that ICT products and services which have been certified in accordance with such a scheme comply with specified requirements. In particular, each European scheme should specify: a) the categories of products and services covered, b) the cybersecurity requirements, for example by reference to standards or technical specifications, c) the type of evaluation such as self-assessment or third party evaluation, and d) the intended level of assurance for instance, basic, substantial and/or high.

ENISA’s mandate is immediate from the entry into force of the Regulation, whereas the cybersecurity certification framework will have to be developed. In this respect, the Commission’s agenda has already included the submission of proposals to ENISA for the preparation of certification projects, as well as the creation of expert groups on cybersecurity.

Finally, this European regulation not only seeks to increase users’ confidence in the use of connected devices, but also to strengthen the European cybersecurity industry and the European Single Market, positioning it as a global benchmark, in line with other markets such as the United States or China.

With significant expertise in protecting innovative products and designs, and in defending intellectual property rights on the Internet, Dreyfus is well positioned to assist you in enhancing your assets on the web.

Written by Dreyfus28/08/2019

Protecting authors’ rights is a necessity in the digital age, as information flows more and more easily. That is why the European Commission reported in September 2017 that it was necessary to tackle illegal online content, while the French legislature has already transposed several European directives and has modified its literary and artistic property law.

In this respect, a great deal has been written by the Directive 2019/790 (EU), adopted on 26 March 2019 by the European Parliament. Among its 30 articles, we count in particular the establishment of a related right for press publishers (Article 15) and an obligation for platforms to control hosted content (Article 17). These provisions have been fiercely debated, and have led to multiple lobbying campaigns by authors and performers, newspaper publishers, and web giants (Google, Facebook and YouTube). In the present article, we will examine the changes made by the Directive.

New exceptions to copyright

There are currently many exceptions to copyright. In that respect, the Directive introduces three new exceptions to author rights and related rights in the digital environment. These exceptions and limitations are:

– Text and data mining for the purpose of scientific research when carried out by research organisations and cultural heritage institutions. However, rightholders are allowed to put in place technical measures aimed at ensuring the security and integrity of the networks and databases where their works are hosted. They may also expressly reserve their rights “in an appropriate manner”, for instance by machine-readable means, such as a digital watermark (Articles 3 and 4);

– The use of works in digital learning activities including distance learning. States may, however, provide a fair compensation for rightholders (Article 5);

– The copying by cultural institutions, for conservation purposes, of works which are part of their permanent collections (Article 6).

French law already provides similar exceptions in the article L. 122-53°) e) 8°) and 10°) of the French Intellectual Property Code, but this is not necessarily the case for all member States.

Under both French law and the Directive, these exceptions must be strictly interpreted and require that the work has been lawfully published.. All the conditions required by law must be met in order to benefit from these exceptions without having to obtain the author’s prior consent..

Furthermore, these new dispositions do not modify existing limitations and exceptions, such as parody or short quotation, which are retained (Article 17 (7) of the Directive). However, Member States will now have to specify that reproductions of visual works of art in the public domain cannot be protected by copyright unless the reproduction itself is original enough to be protected (Article 14). In France, this clarification is a mere application of copyright: a work in the public domain is no longer protected by author rights. Consequently, it can be freely reproduced without authorization. By contrast, if the production is original, it becomes a work on its own right and, as such, can be protected.

Licenses: out-of-commerce works, audiovisual video-on-demand works and collective management

The article 8 of the Directive authorizes collective management organisations to conclude non-exclusive licenses for non-commercial purposes with cultural heritage institutions for exploiting (reproducing, distributing, etc.) out-of-commerce work which are in their permanent collections.

According to Article 8 (5) of the Directive, a work is out-of-commerce: “(…) when it can be presumed in good faith that the whole work or other subject matter is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce, after a reasonable effort has been made to determine whether it is available to the public.”

Such licenses do not require prior mandate from the rightholder, but the collective management organization must be sufficiently representative of rightholders. The owner may, however, exclude at any time his works from this licensing mechanism, whether this exclusion is general or specific. In addition, the moral right to authorship of the work must be respected by indicating the author’s name, “unless this turns out to be impossible” (Article 8(2)).

Therefore, there is a switch from a prior authorization regime to an implied consent regime, and this will require greater vigilance on the part of authors and rightholders.

In France, article L. 134-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code already gives authors of out-of-commerce books the right to oppose to their exploitation.

Article 12 of the Directive provides that States may authorize collective management organizations to extend collective licenses to rightholders who have not authorized the organization to represent them.

Here again, the organization must be sufficiently representative of rightholders, and they in turn may exclude their works at any time from this licensing mechanism.

Furthermore, article 13 of the Directive provides for a negotiation mechanism in which “an impartial body or of mediators” will be in charge, in order to assist in the conclusion of licensing agreements “making available audiovisual works on video-on-demand services”.

The related right of press publishers

Article 15 of the Directive creates a related right for newspaper publishers established in a Member State. They can now be remunerated for use of their content by information service providers, in particular news aggregators. This right is subject to strict conditions of application and does not apply to :

– Private and non-commercial uses;

– Hyperlinks;

– Use of isolated words or very short extracts of a press publication;

– Works published for the first time before the Directive’s entry into force.

Moreover, this right is only granted for two years from January 1st of the year following the date on which that press publication is published.

This related right is a right of its own, and thus publishers no longer have to demonstrate they indeed own the economic rights transferred to them by the author of the work.

Part of the remuneration paid by service providers to newspaper publishers must be paid to the authors. However, the Directive does not specify how this payment must be carried out. In addition, authors can exploit their works independently of press publication.

Online content-sharing service are fully responsible (Article 17)

In France, platform operators enjoy the protective status of article 6-I-2 of the law “for confidence in the digital economy” n° 2004-575 of 21 June 2004. They are not

liable if they “promptly” remove the content at stake.

Platforms will now be liable if they communicate to the public without authorization works protected by copyright. However, they will be exempt from liability if they have:

– “Made best efforts to obtain an authorization” from rightholders;

– “Made best efforts” to ensure the unavailability of the work and

– Acted “ expeditiously” to disable access to the work or remove it from their websites after receiving a « sufficiently substantiated notice” of the rightholders.

Compliance with these requirements will be examined with regard to the type, audience, and size of the service, as well as the type of works downloaded. Article 17 (8) specifies that platforms are not subject to any general monitoring obligation, but its paragraph 4 (b) requires that they provide their “best efforts”, “in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence”, to ensure the unavailability of protected works, which seems to be a sneaky way to require automatic content filtering.

Platforms that have been in service for less than three years, and which have an annual turnover of less than €10 million, will benefit from a less restrictive liability regime, as they will only have to make their best efforts to obtain an authorization and will have to act promptly upon receipt of a “sufficiently substantiated notice” from a right holder.

Furthermore, all platforms will be required to put in place an “effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism” so that users can challenge blocking or removal of a work posted online. States must also provide for alternative dispute resolution procedures.

Finally, it should be noted that authors and performers will now have to be remunerated in an “appropriate and proportionate” manner (Article 18). They must receive, at least once a year, information on the exploitation of their works (transparency obligation provided for in article 19). Contracts which are already concluded should be adapted to provide for an “additional, appropriate and fair remuneration” (article 20). Article 22 of the Directive also gives authors a right to revoke a license or a transfer of rights. These measures already exist in French law, but the Directive will harmonize European law.

The next step is the transposition of these provisions, which must be done by 21 June 2021 at the latest. France, which supports this text, should proceed with this transposition next summer. A proposal for a law on related rights with regard to press articles is already under consideration.

These developments are to be monitored…

Written by Dreyfus22/08/2019

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, March 15, 2019, No. D2018-2944, Théâtre du Gymnase Marie Bell SAS versus Mr. Erol Topal.

This case illustrates the need for any company to define a clear policy for managing its domain names to ensure that these domain names are registered in the company’s name and remain under its control. If this is not done the company may lose some of its rights. Moreover, if an employee registers domain names in his or her own name it could be difficult to recover these domain names.

The Théâtre du Gymnase Marie Bell, commonly known as the “Théâtre du Gymnase”, was registered in 1958. It is a Parisian performance hall which was classified as a historical monument in 1994.

In 2004, one of its employees registered the domain name <theatredugymnase.com> in his own name, but allegedly on behalf of the company. In addition, in 2018, he registered four other domain names that include all or part of the company’s name: <theatre-du-gymnase.com>, <theatredugymnasemariebell.com>, <gymnasemariebell.com> and <letheatredugymnase.com>.

The day after these domain names were registered, the Théâtre du Gymnase noticed malfunctions on its official website located at www.theatredugymnase.com. No information was being displayed, not even the performances scheduled.

On October 25, 2018, the theatre fired the employee, on the grounds of his refusal to provide the codes to manage the official website. Subsequently, formal letters were sent but there was no response to these.

The Théâtre du Gymnase then filed a UDRP complaint seeking the transfer of the domain names.

The respondent, (now a former employee of the company) said that he retained the names because proceedings before the Labour Court were pending. He also claimed to have registered and managed a number of domain names for the complainant, without ever getting paid. He stated that in August 2018 an invoice of 36,000 euros was sent to the Théâtre, which acknowledged the due amount and indicated its intention to pay. However, the respondent has not received any payment because proceedings before the Labour Court were subsequently initiated.

Initially, the expert had to consider whether the complainant had trademark rights in its name, because ownership of a trademark is necessary to bring a successful complaint under UDRP. Although the name “Théâtre du Gymnase Marie Bell” is not registered as a trademark, the company claimed to have rights in it, particularly due to its use as a company name, trade name and brand. The Expert therefore considered that the use of this name is such that the complainant enjoys unregistered trademark rights, (on which a complaint may be based). Therefore, the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the complainant’s prior rights could be recognised.

Regarding the question of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interest or bad faith use of the domain names, four of the disputed domain names were registered on the eve of the malfunctions of the complainant’s web site, after which it was discovered that only the respondent had access to site management and refused to provide the complainant with the codes that would allow such access.

In addition, these four domain names pointed to what appeared to be the site of a Turkish specialty restaurant, and the other pointed to what appeared to be the official website of the Théâtre du Gymnase, but which indicated that there would be no performance whereas the new official website accessible at the address “www.theatredugymnase.paris” showed performances were ongoing.

Thus, the expert noted that the use made of the disputed domain names disrupted the claimant’s activities.

For these reasons, the transfer of the names to the Théâtre du Gymnase, was ordered without prejudice to the decision that will be made by the Labour Court.

Although this is a case of “all’s well that ends well” for the Théâtre du Gymnase matters might have gone differently. If for example the expert had taken the view that this was a dispute over payment of an invoice legitimately incurred by the respondent in compliance with the complainant’s express wishes, the decision could have gone differently. The existence of a clear, unambiguous domain name policy should leave no room for doubt whether an employee is acting within defined guidelines or is acting contrary to an employer’s guidelines – and therefore is clearly in bad faith. Consequently, this case reflects the importance of establishing a naming policy internally, setting clear rules and best practices for the registration and management of trademarks and domain names, in order to avoid disruption and potential asset loss.

Written by Dreyfus20/08/2019

As an Alias adopted to preserve anonymity, the pseudonym is frequently used in the public sphere for commercial purposes. This can be, for example, the pen name of an author, the identity under which a painter is known, etc.

French law does not provide any legal status for the pseudonym. However, it is recognized as a right of personality. As such, it enjoys an existence and legal protection.

When the pseudonym is intended for public use, the choice requires particular attention. Therefore there are limits established by law which must be respected. Thus, the pseudonym chosen must not violate public order or morality. The existence of prior rights, such as a registered trademark or prior use of the same pseudonym by another individual, is also a limiting factor.

In addition, Article L. 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code states that a sign may not be adopted as a trademark if it infringes an earlier right. These earlier rights include the personality rights of another person, particularly his surname, pseudonym or likeness.

The pseudonym may not only constitute an earlier blocking right for a trademark but may also be registered as a trademark. This has two consequences:

– the need to check whether the pseudonym infringes apreviously existing pseudonym used commercially

A pseudonym used in the private sphere raises few problems in practice. The same applies if it is used for a limited period of time. If it is not intended for commercial use, it is not necessary to check the existence of any previous use by a third party.

– the protection of a pseudonym may be increased if it is registered as a trademark

Registering a pseudonym as a trademark provides better protection. This registration also leads to its becoming an intellectual property asset in its own right and therefore increases its value. This provides security for the user of the pseudonym as well as for his business partners. It is then easier to carry out commercial operations using this pseudonym (assignment contracts, licensing, marketing operations, etc.)

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

Written by Nathalie Dreyfus09/08/2019

The China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), registry of the <.CN> and <.中国> ccTLDs, has designated WIPO to provide dispute resolution services under the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy. Disputes in relation to these ccTLDs may be filed with WIPO from August 1, 2019.

The <.CN> Policy is ONLY applicable to <.CN> and <.中国> domain names that have been registered for less than three years.

This Policy applies to <.CN> and <.中国>domain names that are identical or confusingly similar, not only to a mark, but to any “name” in which the complainant has civil rights or interests (.CN Policy, article 8(a)), whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights.

It is sufficient for the complainant to prove that either registration or use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both elements.

The appeal jurisdiction belongs to the Courts of China or the arbitration Chinese institution, and the proceedings language will be Chinese (unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the Panel).

This adds to the over 75 other ccTLDs for which trademark owners can rely on WIPO’s dispute resolution services.

Written by Dreyfus09/08/2019

On March 2017, the new General Civil Chinese Law Rules extended the general limitation period for civil actions from 2 to 3 years.

Since then, many recommendations have been made about the need to change the China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC) dispute resolution policy which barred action against a <.cn> domain name which had been registered for more than two years to accord with the one established under the Civil regulation.

The CNNIC developed its first domain name dispute resolution rules in 2000, and following the provisions under the General Civil Law Rules of People’s Republic of China, in force at that time, set a term of 2 years following registration within which action had to be taken.

The CCNIC was established June 3, 1997 who is the registry for domain names in China.

Indeed, the China Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDPR) is the only dispute resolution policy which sets a time limit within which to admit complaints about domain names. This 2 year time-bar has been seen as an effective barrier to challenging any <.cn> registrations, because after the 2 years period, the only possibility was either to negotiate or attempt court action. Fortunately, in order to align the CNDPR time limit for action to the General Civil Law rule, it has been reviewed and extended to 3 years. This was implemented on 18 June 2019, and provides more flexibility to complainants to initiate alternative dispute resolution proceedings against domain names in the <.cn> name space.

Despite this good news there are still some unanswered questions; in particular whether the change to the new term has retroactive effect, or will apply only to those domain names registered after the change in the policy became effective.

To be continued…

Written by Dreyfus19/06/2019

The United Kingdom Office has withdrawn its notification made under Rule 34 (2) (b) of the Common Regulations applicable to the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol.

As a result, since May 6, 2019, the United Kingdom Office no longer collects and forwards to the International Bureau of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) the fees due under these regulations.

In other words, any payment of these fees pursuant to a registration requested of the United Kingdom Office must be made directly to WIPO, as is already the case in France. As a result of this administrative change, a payment can now be made in four ways:

– By debiting a WIPO current account;

– By credit card, but only for payments of fees related to renewal of registered marks, notification of irregularities issued by the Office, or for additional fees relating to the designation of additional contracting parties after the trademark has been registered. Such payments are made in Swiss francs and require a WIPO reference number;

– By bank transfer;

– By postal transfer for inter-European payments.

To be handled correctly, payments by bank transfer must include the name and complete address of the payer, the transaction code (EN), the trademark number, the trademark name, if available, or its verbal elements, and the name of the trademark holder, if different from the payer. In the case of multiple requests, a list containing each request and the amount paid for each request is also required.

It is important to pay all fees in full, otherwise an irregularity notification will be issued. This notification shall specify a payment period beyond which the request shall be deemed to have been abandoned.

As the United Kingdom Registrar no longer makes these payments to WIPO, it is up to the applicant or his representative to be vigilant and diligent when making them.

Harmonization and modernization

Enhanced protection of rights

Alternative dispute resolution and legal certainty

Key challenges to monitor

Timeline and future prospects

Breaking Down INPI’s Landmark Decision: A Tale of Two Industries

The art of proving bad faith: Beyond surface-level analysis

A framework precision for evaluating bad faith

Conclusion

What is the IP Strategy Diagnostic?

Objectives of the IP Strategy Diagnostic

Implementation Process

Costs and Funding

Eligibility Criteria

Dreyfus Expertise

Conclusion

“We shape our buildings ; thereafter they shape us.” – Winston Churchill

So, what does make BIM so exciting?

Where does intellectual property come into this conversation?

SEE ALSO ….

ABOUT THIS TOPIC…

Joining a system to facilitate access to design protection

The consequences of such accession

See also…

See also…

See also…

SEE ALSO…

Detecting potential trademark infringements and securing your trademarks online

Online trademark audits

(Pre)litigation

SEE ALSO…

Registration of trademark (INPI)

How much will it cost to register a trademark with INPI

See also…

Where to register your “.au direct” domain name and at what price?

What are the requirements?

How to register “.au direct” domain names?

About this topic…

About this topic…

How is this happening?

Here are our advices.

About this topic…

1. The next round of new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name

2. Addressing the issue of domain name abuse

3. Reliability of Data

4. Accessibility of data

5. Consumer protection

About this topic…

A fake press release from Bloomberg

The domain name issue in the false press release

How to protect your domain name?

How to mitigate the risks regarding domain names ?

La lourde charge de la preuve incombant au Plaignant pour s’opposer à l’usage de la notoriété d’une marque.

La possibilité de saisir la justice reste ouverte

Who can request the invalidity of the trademark?

What are the characteristics of the procedure?

Can we appeal the decision?

What is the current state of this new procedure?

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with copyright law?

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with trademark law?

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with unfair competition and free-riding ?

What precautions should you take to protect your IP rights?

Why bet on the trademark?

The domain name is an important asset!

Was the “fair use” exemption a good idea?

Did Frank Davidovici have legal standing?

On the French five-year limitation period for infringement

Pleas in law based on the freedom of artistic expression and the parody exception