Intellectual Property Archives - Page 4 of 15

Is it possible to invoke a trademark that is not protected in the defendant’s country?

Written by Dreyfus08/03/2022

The trademark invoked by the applicant does not necessarily have to be protected in the country of the respondent

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISIONVente-privee.com v. 郑碧莲 (Zheng Bi Lian)Case No. DCN2021-0004

In order for a UDRP complaint to succeed, it is necessary to prove a trademark right similar or identical to the domain name, generating a risk of confusion. Then, it must be established that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and finally, it must be shown that the respondent has registered and used the name in bad faith.

In order to establish this bad faith, it is essential to show that the respondent has prior knowledge of the applicant’s rights and that the disputed registration is aimed at these rights. Being the owner of a trademark protected in the country where the defendant is established is therefore a considerable asset. However, it is not a requirement.
Vente-privee.com is a French e-commerce company that has been operating for 20 years in the organization of event-based sales of all kinds of products and services at reduced prices, including major trademarks.
At the beginning of 2019, Vente-privee.com began a process of unifying its trademarks under a single new name: VEEPEE. This rebranding was widely promoted internationally. It had previously secured trademark rights to the “VEEPEE” sign via a filing an EUTM in November 2017 and via an international trademark filed the same day covering Mexico, Monaco, Norway and Switzerland. Vente-privee.com also owns numerous domain names matching “VEEPEE” such as <veepee.es>, <veepee.it>, <veepee.de> and <veepee.com>.

Having detected the registration of the <veepee.cn> domain name reserved in 2018 by a China-based registrant, the company filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center seeking the transfer of the name.
The likelihood of confusion was easily admitted by the expert, who considered the domain name to be identical to the applicant’s earlier trademarks. On this occasion, he recalls that the trademark does not need to be registered in a specific country for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

This is in line with the assessment of WIPO’s Overview 3.0, which specifies in its section 1.1.2, quoted by the expert, that in view of the international nature of domain names and the Internet, the jurisdiction in which the trademark is protected is not relevant for the analysis of the first criterion. Bearing in mind, however, that this factor may be important for the examination of the other criteria.

the Panel notes that the Respondent has no business relationship with the Complainant and has not received any authorization from it to reserve the disputed domain name. As the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, the Panel finds that Vente-privee.com has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Finally, on the issue of bad faith, the expert insists on the arbitrary nature of the name VEEPEE: “VEEPEE is a made-up word with no particular meaning in Chinese or English”. He also highlights the fact that the domain name has not been actively used, but on the contrary refers to a website in English, accessible to all, on which it is for sale.

Therefore, the expert orders that the disputed domain name <veepee.cn> be transferred to the Complainant.

This decision is a reminder that it is important to choose the right trademarks to be used in a UDRP complaint. Ideally, it is necessary to prove a registration in the country of the registrant, if possible prior to the domain name. In the absence of a registration in the relevant jurisdiction, it is important to demonstrate that the trademark is used and known outside the boundaries of its registration.

In this instance, we note that the disputed domain name is indeed subsequent to the applicant’s trademarks, but prior to the Vente-privee.com rebranding operation by almost a year. This information might have required analysis had the Respondent responded to the Complaint. Information that could have been counterbalanced, however, with the registration date of the name <veepee.com> (the <.com> targeting the international), which is very old: December 6, 1999.

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 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 Dreyfus13/12/2021

Following a decision by the Shenzhen Nashan People’s Court in China, a work generated by an algorithmic program has been deemed eligible for copyright protection.

1. An infringement action of a work produced by an automated program

Tencent, a company specializing in internet services and online advertising, published on its website a financial report article written by an algorithm-based intelligent writing system and data set, called « Tencent Robot Dreamwriter ».

After noticing that the article was reproduced without permission on a website operated by Shanghai Yingxun Technology, Tencent filed an infringement action against the said company.

However, the underlying and main issue in this dispute is whether a work generated with the help of artificial intelligence can adequately benefit from copyright protection.

The issue has been a constant source of controversy on an international scale for several years, and the Beijing Internet Court ruled in 2019 that only legal subjects expressly specified by Chinese copyright law should be considered as appropriate authors of works. Therefore, algorithmic programs are excluded. The court had also investigated on the process of generating the artificial intelligence at issue.

2. A precarious apprehension of creations generated by artificial intelligence

According to Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence of May 21, 2020 prepared by the WIPO Secretariat, a distinction should be made between « AI generated », which does not require human intervention and which can modify its behavior during an operation in accordance with the application of various factors and « AI assisted », which conversely requires material human intervention and/or direction.

Regarding the European Union, the Delvaux Report adopted in February 2017 by the European Parliament proposed to grant a « sui generis » intellectual property protection to works created by artificial intelligence and to reflect on the criteria of proper intellectual creation applicable to copyrightable works created by computers or robots.

3. Towards an evolution of copyright in the field of artificial intelligence

The case opposing Tencent to Shanghai Yingxun Technology is the first litigation to support copyright protection for a work generated by an algorithmic program.

During the proceeding, Tencent explained the entire process of the “creative team” used to generate and publish the article with the assistance of the “Dreamwriter” robot.

The court carried out a reasoning based in particular on two points of assessment.

Firstly, attention was classically paid to the form of expression, the content and structure of the article that have been judged original.

Then, the court turned to the generation process of the article. In this regard, it focused on the presence of factors indicating the creator’s individual selections, judgment and required skills, recognizing that the creation process differed from the ordinary process of creating written works.

This court decision tends to favor, eminently, a possible extension of copyright protection to works generated by artificial intelligence on an international scale. However, reflections on the criteria that could be specifically retained in order to appreciate the benefit of the protection of these works coming from a creative process that has been excluded until now, will continue to feed, and even prolong, the debate.

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.

About this topic…

♦ All concerned: works generated by artificial intelligence

♦ Meeting with Jean-Gabriel Ganascia

Written by Dreyfus03/12/2021

Some cases are interesting because of the judicial outcomes, others because of the reputation of the Parties in the proceedings, and others because they fall into both categories.

This is the case of the judgment rendered by the General Court of the European Union on June 16, 2021. This decision opposed the European Union Trademark Office (EUIPO) to the company of the famous singer and actress Miley Cyrus: Smiley Miley. The latter is challenging the decision rendered by the Office in the dispute between it and the company Trademarks Ltd.

The genesis of this procedure was the European Union trademark application, in the name of Smiley Miley, of the word mark MILEY CYRUS in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41.

Cyrus Trademarks Ltd. lodged an opposition against said application, on the basis of its earlier European Union “CYRUS” trademark No. 9176306, registered for goods in classes 9 and 20.

After the Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition because of the likelihood of confusion, Smiley Miley filed an appeal that the EUIPO rejected.

Indeed, the EUIPO considered that there was a likelihood of confusion in particular because the level of attention of the relevant public varied from medium to high, that, by all means, the goods and at stake were identical and similar, and that, visually and phonetically, the signs were relatively similar.

Were the signs distinctive, different and differentiable?

The key criterion for assessing the risk as a whole is the overall impression that the trademark produces.

The Board of Appeal first tried to analyze the value of a surname compared to a first name and concluded that a surname has a “higher intrinsic value”. Then, the Court considered that neither the first name Miley nor the surname Cyrus are common in the European Union, “including for the English-speaking public”.

Not surprisingly, the applicant denounced this reasoning. The Court of First Instance recalled that these principles cannot be applied automatically, as they are principles drawn from experience and not set in stone. That said, as the singer and actress enjoys real renown, the assessment of the distinctive character of her mark would be less Manichean than it would have been for a trademark based on the first and last names of a non-famous person. In this regard, the Court of First Instance agreed with the applicant, considering that none of the elements of the mark “MILEY CYRUS” was more dominant than the other.

Regarding visual and aural levels, the Tribunal deemed that the trademarks were similar despite their differences.

The delicate examination of the conceptual comparison of signs

The applicant assessed that, due to Miley Cyrus’s fame, the mark was distinct from the earlier trademark. The EUIPO considered that the name and surname of the singer had not become a symbol of a concept.

The Court of First Instance accepted that Miley Cyrus was a character known to the general public in the ordinary course of events (a finding the Board of Appeal did not challenge).

When the Court of First Instance assessed the conceptual meaning of “MILEY CYRUS”, using the Larousse definition of “concept”, its research showed that, given her fame, the singer had indeed become the symbol of a concept.

On the other hand, and insofar as the artist had never performed using her surname alone, even though it is not common, the Court concluded that the public would not necessarily perceive the term “Cyrus” as referring directly to Miley Cyrus.

The Court therefore concluded that the “earlier mark has no particular semantic meaning for the relevant public”. Moreover, insofar as the concepts of the two trademarks were quite different, this had the effect of blurring their visual and phonetic similarities.

The law established that to qualify a likelihood of confusion, there must be an identity or similarity of the signs and an identity or similarity of the goods and services designated. Here, the Court of First Instance’s reasonings allowed to discard the likelihood of confusion between the two marks; the star entered the European Union trademark registry under No.012807111.

This decision serves as a reminder that great conceptual differences between two trademarks can benefit an applicant. This case also adds to the list of cases where the fame of names has allowed visual and phonetic similarities of signs to be easily dismissed.

About this topic…

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

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…

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…

1. An infringement action of a work produced by an automated program

2. A precarious apprehension of creations generated by artificial intelligence

3. Towards an evolution of copyright in the field of artificial intelligence

About this topic…

Were the signs distinctive, different and differentiable?

The delicate examination of the conceptual comparison of signs

About this topic…

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

News from Dreyfus Blog

Categories

Categories