Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
Contact

Intellectual Property

Extension of the contract between the EURid and the European Commission: the Brexit influence

Written by Dreyfus23/08/2019

On March 29, 2019, the registry in charge of <.eu> domain names (EURid) announced the extension of its contract with the European Commission until October 12, 2022 under the Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of March 19, 2019 (“the 2019 Regulation”).

With one exception, the provisions of the 2019 Regulation will apply starting October 13, 2022, and repeal the Regulations (CE) 733/2002 and (CE) 874/2004. The exception is that the provision concerning eligibility criteria under Article 20 of the 2019 Regulation will apply from October 19, 2019. This provision allows any person holding European Union citizenship, regardless of country of residence, to register a <.eu> domain name.

The purpose of this new regulation is to adapt the rules governing the <.eu> ccTLD to the expansion of the domain names sector. In this regard, the EURid’s annual report shows a steady increase in registrations in six countries including Portugal, Ireland and Norway. Nevertheless, the uncertainty caused by Brexit led to a loss of 130,000 domain names for the 2018 period. This decrease is mainly due to the anticipation of registrants who face the impossibility of registering or renewing their <.eu> domain names in the near future.

 

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

Read More

An employee refuses to transfer domain names wrongly registered in his own name

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.

Read More

The pseudonym: what protection?

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.

Read More

Disputes regarding domain names and : it is now possible to act before the WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Centre.

Written by 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.

Read More

The dispute resolution policy which governs the domain has extended the term within which action may be taken from 2 to 3 years.

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…

Read More

Key points from the ICANN 65 meeting in Marrakech

Written by Dreyfus07/08/2019

The 65th international meeting of the ICANN took place in Marrakech, from the 24th to the 27th of June 2019. Several topics have been discussed such as the new gTLDs issues, the compliance between ICANN procedures and the GDPR provisions and the review of the rights protection mechanisms.

 

  • Future new gTLDs issues

 

Recently, ICANN faced an increase in the number of applications for top-level domains (gTLDs). In 2012, almost 2000 applications for new gTLDs were submitted to ICANN. At the end of this first round, more than 1000 gTLDs were created, for instance the <.brands>. ICANN awaits similar applications for the next round, which should take place in 2022.

 

Thus, new strategies have to be implemented to handle with those requests. At first ICANN foresees establishing priorities, based on the new gTLDs applications, to make the process more efficient. This process could be opened every year for a period of 4 months. However, ICANN could seek to limit the number of applications to 1000 per year.

 

Furthermore, TLDs with 2 characters will be permitted under the new process if these are composed by one letter and one number. Nevertheless, singular and plural versions of the same extensions are likely to be banned as coexisting gTLDs in the future.

 

On the other hand, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), specifically mentioned the <.amazon> issue in its report dated on 27 June 2019.

The ICANN Board had authorized the use of this gTLDs whereas several GAC members had expressed their concerns about the risk of the Amazon case becoming a precedent and expressed concern that a mutually acceptable solution had not been achieved. The GAC has requested ICANN Board to formulate its grounds for its approval. In addition, several South American governments object to its use.

 

  • GDPR and EPDP

 

The Expedited Policy Development Process Working Group (EPDP) implemented a compliance policy in regard to the GDPR, on March 2019. In our article about ICANN 63, we explained that when the GDPR came into force, it would produce several effects on the Whois protocol. For instance, personal data will no longer be accessible to the public. The EPDP has now to develop a unified access system centralizing protected data, based on the legitimate interests of IP owners.

 

Furthermore, some details about the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) were given in the ICANN 65. This protocol has been created to eventually replace the Whois protocol. In fact, it performs the same functions as Whois, but its aim is to standardize data access. It shall be implemented by Registries and Registrars by the 26th of August 2019.

 

 

  • Review of protection mechanisms provided by ICANN

 

The Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) Working group is reviewing several ICANN procedures concerning gTLDs. It has developed preliminary recommendations about Sunrise and Claims periods. In the same way, some proposals have been developed to allow trademark owners to acquire a priority right to register their trademark as a domain name. In the absence of such a registration, third parties could register terms corresponding to the trademark.

 

Up to now, the first phase of the working group scheme consists in reviewing Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) mechanisms. Similarly, the UDRP procedure remains on the horizon, and the Group is expected to begin work on that in mid-2020. This will be the second phase of its work.

 

Meantime, as their work is not yet completed, we will have more information once their report is completed, which is expected to be in April 2020.

 

On the other hand, another working group was also formed to study Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) for new gTLDs. This working group confirmed its support of a User Guide, under the assumption that it becomes more precise, to make it easier to understand what gTLDs are.

 

Similarly, the SubPro working group expects to better communicate with trademark owners in order to limit the risk of counterfeiting, and to show how those new gTLDs could have a good effect on their activity.

 

Thus, ICANN 65 provided an opportunity to evaluate the work done thus far by the working groups. However, if clarifications have been made, few concrete changes have been put in place. The projects should take shape at the next meetings organized by ICANN.

 

The next ICANN meeting will take place in November 2019, in Montreal. We will continue to follow this matter closely.

Read More

Challenge to the validity of the « three-stripes » figurative trademark of Adidas, because of a lack of distinctiveness.

Written by Dreyfus07/08/2019

According to the judgment « Adidas AG / EUIPO », T-307/17, of the 19th of June 2019, the General Court (ninth chamber) of the European Union dismissed an appeal by Adidas against the decision of the EUIPO to declare the famous « three-stripes » figurative trademark invalid on the grounds it lacked distinctive character.

 

This began when Adidas opposed the registration of the 2 stripes trademark of its competitor, Shoe Branding, who counterclaimed to have the Adidas “three-stripes” registration declared invalid on the grounds it lacked distinctive character. By a decision of  30th June 2016, the cancellation division of the EUIPO declared the Adidas registration invalid, and by decision dated 7th March 2017, the second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO upheld the original decision to cancel the Adidas trademark.

Therefore, Adidas appealed that decision to the General Court arguing that the challenged trademark had acquired distinctiveness through use. However, the Court ruled that there was a lack of inherit distinctiveness and also refused to recognise the acquisition of distinctiveness through use. In doing so, the Court said that Adidas did not provide sufficient evidence of distinctive character. According to the Court, Adidas had proved only that the necessary distinctiveness had been proved in only 5 of the EU member states.

 

It is important to remember that the distinctiveness is not established by providing evidence of sales and marketing figures for the products and services, but is judged by reference to the relevant public’s perception of the trademark. The Court said that distinctive character must be assessed, first, by reference to the goods or services in respect of which registration has been applied for and, second, by reference to the perception which the relevant public has of those goods or services. This meant that the Court considered the relevant public consists of all potential consumers of those goods in the European Union, and on the evidence filed said they would not make an obvious link between the « three-stripes » and the owner (Adidas). Although the « three-stripes » became the symbol of Adidas a long time ago the evidence filed by Adidas did not demonstrate an obvious link between the sign as registered and the products for which it is registered. There was no direct evidence the “three-stripes” as registered were actually used on the products covered in the registration. Therefore, the trademark’s distinctive character, and so its validity, could not be upheld.

 

The Court already accepted that a repetition of signs for a figurative trademark could be a valid trademark (TUE, 9th of november 2016, Birkenstock Sales/EUIPO, T-579-14 Representation of a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines). Nevertheless, in this case, the Court thought the trademark is composed of obvious non-distinctive elements.

 

Distinctive character can be acquired through use after registration (Com. 6th Déc. 2016, n°15-19048), but under the Directive 2008/95/CE of the 22nd of October 2008, evidence that the registration has acquired distinctive character has to be shown in each country of the European Union, (CJUE, 3rd chamber, 25th of July 2018, Nestlé SA c/ Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd). Adidas was criticised for not having provided evidence covering every state of the EU. According to established case law, it is necessary to prove distinctiveness in all the states of the Union. On the other hand case law makes it clear that it may be sufficient to prove distinctive character in a substantial part of the EU dependant on the geographic importance of the states where distinctive character has been proved (CJUE, 24 of May 2012, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG c/ OHMI, C-98/11 P). Adidas could benefit from this case law.

 

Arguably, according to the Council Regulation n°207/2009, the European Court is going against the past judgments, but the decision is a necessary reminder of the need to prove distinctiveness acquired through use, in each country of the Union.

In the circumstances of this case, an appeal to  the Court of Justice of the European Union is to be expected because of the effect of this decision on Adidas, which has registered several figurative trademarks of this kind. It may also have an effect on many other trademark owners. This judgement relates only to the specific trademark registration challenged and does not directly affect the other trademarks of Adidas, nor of any other owners.

Read More

Nathalie Dreyfus has been admitted as panelist and arbitrator in the CIRA Panel

Written by Dreyfus07/08/2019

Nathalie Dreyfus has been admitted as panelist and arbitrator in the CIRA Panel (Canadian Internet Registration Authority).

The CIRA Panel is a new Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre which belongs to the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC).

The main aim of CIRA is to settle disputes concerning domain names through a quick and relatively low cost mechanism, led by out-of-court arbitrators who meet certain requirements according to CIRA’s Canadian Presence.   

The process is initiated by a complaint received in the CIRA Complaint Center which locks the disputed domain. A copy of the complaint is redirected to the Registrant who has twenty days to deliver a response. If so, a Panel of experts is appointed, whereas if there is no response the complainant may elect a single panelist. In both cases, a decision is given within twenty one days.

This decision is directly implemented by the CIRA.Since BCICAC was founded more than hundred cases have been solved by this institution.

 

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

Read More

Conflict between trademark and plant variety

Written by Dreyfus07/08/2019

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Read More

Social networks and online reviews: how to defend against unfair competition

Written by Dreyfus05/08/2019

In a short time, networking sites have become one of the main channels for companies’ communication. eBay, Tripadvisors, Amazon or even the more conventional social networks such as Facebook or Twitter have, in fact, become preferential showcases for advertising. They do undoubtedly represent an opportunity for making a company visible, but they nonetheless pose a real threat to reputation. Companies are now faced with a new, major challenge in terms of unfair competition, that is to say “fake customer reviews”, that, although false, have a great influence on the consumption of the products and services they target.

The French Directorate-general for competition, consumer affairs and prevention of fraud (DGCCRF) revealed that 74% of surfers have already changed their minds about buying a product because of negative comments or reviews.

 

Faced with this hefty problem, companies endow themselves with legal instruments with the intention of stamping out such practices.

 

Disparagement and deceptive marketing practices

The case law has already determined in the past, that defamation cannot be a valid foundation for “judgements, even excessive, concerning the products or services of an industrial or commercial undertaking”.[1]

Concerning unfavourable reviews regarding a commercial activity, undertakings must base their case in the domain of unfair competition, particularly by referring to an act of disparagement. This practice consists in a person or an undertaking discrediting the goods or services of an undertaking with the intent to harm reputation. Like any act of unfair competition, the author of disparagement can be held liable on the basis of article 1140 of the Civil Code.

For instance, on this basis, the Court of Appeal of Paris ruled against a company selling food supplements which had strongly criticised the products of their rival on their site in the “product reviews” section, describing them as “crap” among other things.[2]

The Court had, in the case in point, also based its decision on article 121-1 of the Code of Consumption which sanctions deceitful marketing practices to the extent that such comments corrupt the natural behaviour of the consumers.

Similarly, sanctions had been pronounced concerning negative opinions of a restaurant which had not yet even opened when they were posted.[3]

New sanctions for false online reviews

Although disparagement and deceitful practices had been the traditional foundations concerning these exaggeratedly negative remarks, the legislator specifically intended to control and thereby punish these fake reviews.

 

In the light of this, three implementing decrees of the law for a Digital Republic entered into force on 1st January 2018. Introducing the new article L111-7-II of the Code of Consumption, they oblige undertakings and individuals whose activity consists in collecting, moderating or disseminating online reviews from customers, to provide fair, clear and transparent information on their processing and publication. This must be presented alongside said reviews, their date of publication as well as that of the consumer experience concerned and whether or not they underwent a control procedure. These decrees replace individual platforms’ voluntary compliance with the Afnor standard, which is supposed to ensure the fairness of the comments. It remains to be seen how the platforms will comply with such requirements.

This new obligation which imposes increased monitoring of such reviews on undertakings, shows that, although unfair competition was a convenient tool, case law has shown that these extensive large scale practices represented a real challenge for companies and should be framed by specific texts.

[1] https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/tribunal-de-grande-instance-de-paris-17eme-chambre-correctionnelle-jugement-du-13-fevrier-2014/

[2] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000018909511

[3] http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/10/27/2-500-euros-d-amende-pour-avoir-denigre-un-restaurant-sur-internet_4798047_3224.html

The firm Dreyfus & associés specialises in the field of intellectual property. Their team is up to date on the new developments in European legislation. They will be able to provide you with all the help and guidance you require concerning your intellectual property rights in Europe.

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

© 2024 Dreyfus – Created by Agence Peach