Brief : DOMAIN NAMES: THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF DIFFERENT DOMAIN NAME SYSTEMS

Written by Dreyfus04/03/2022

A website can only be accessed if a system is able to link the URL entered by a user in his or her browser to the server of the website in question. This is called the Domain Name System (DNS). The DNS operates as an intermediary system through sending a request on the Internet in order to make the link between the address entered in the browser by the user and the actual access to the site. This is the reason why the DNS is often compared to a telephone directory as it allows to translate the names given by the user into names that are intelligible for machines.

When everything is set up properly to ensure that the DNS can play its role as an intermediary, it is sufficient to just have a device with Internet connection to access the site.

But currently some registrars offer domain names that don’t rely on the traditional DNS. Instead, they use technologies such as blockchain.

In order to be accessible, these domain names require the installation of specific tools such as particular browsers or plug-ins. These constitute additional costs for potential buyers who simply want to obtain a traditional domain name for their website.

These offers present two fundamental risks. The first issue relates to the communication of the Internet regulatory authority ICANN of November 24, 2021. It concerns the risk of confusion for consumers. In fact, it is not easy for the average consumer to make the distinction between these two types of offers whereas the purchase of these different domain names covers very different realities.

The second issue of this alternative resolution system consists of the risk of conflicts between domain names that would be registered through the traditional DNS system and those based on one of the new non-DNS systems.

These possible conflicts include name collisions. Hence, this phenomenon might intensify with the creation of parallel networks. This might occur when the system being used to translate names being entered by users into intelligible names for machines – in this case a non-DNS system – is sent to a DNS system, for which the address corresponds to the address of a different website.

In that case, the user would be redirected to the wrong domain name. These uncertainties could give rise to legal conflicts in the coming years if the new systems become more important.

Sources: ICANN Blog, Buyer Beware: Not All Names Are Created Equal, November 24, 2021, A. Durand
ICANN, Frequently Asked Questions: Name Collisions for IT Professionals

Brief : THE DEREFERENCE OF WISH FROM SEARCH ENGINES: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW LEGAL SAGA?

Written by Dreyfus04/03/2022

On the 23rd of November 2021, the French Department of Economy and Finance ordered the dereference of the US online sales platform “Wish” from search engines. This decision was issued after an investigation conducted by the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention (DGCCRF) on a line of goods sold by the online platform. This investigation revealed a high percentage of non-compliant and hazardous products.

It appeared that 95% of all the surveyed electronic devices were non-compliant and 90% of them were hazardous. Therefore, the DGCCRF ordered Wish to comply with the applicable regulation on the 15th of July. However, as this injunction did not receive a satisfactory response, the website as well as the mobile application were dereferenced from search engines at the request of the department of the French Ministry of Economy and Finance.

The dereference of Wish from search engines was issued in compliance with article L. 521-3-1 of the French Consumer Code. Under this article, any competent agent is allowed to order the dereference of «online interfaces whose content are manifestly illegal».

According to the online platform Wish, this measure was disproportionate as it undermined its image and reputation and caused detrimental financial consequences to the company. However, it should be noted that the effectiveness of the decision remains relative because the dereference only applies in France. With a few clicks, it is often sufficient to change the settings of your browser, such as Google, to locate yourself in a different region.

Moreover, as of December 28, 2021, we note that the first two results of the Google search engine reveal a Google Play page to download the Wish app as well as the company’s Facebook page.

Finally, the website is of course directly accessible via its web address.

Unlike website blocking, dereferencing does not prevent access to a website. But in theory, it makes it more difficult to access it because you have to type the entire URL to access it, instead of just entering the name of the online marketplace in a search engine.

After the rejection of the request of an expedited appeal procedure (“recours en référé”) by the administrative court, Wish decided to file an appeal in cassation. A new judicial saga seems to be looming on the horizon.

Ministry of Economy and Finance: « Protection des consommateurs: lourde sanction pour la place de marché en ligne Wish »: www.economie.gouv.fr/protection-consommateurs-sanction-place-marche-ligne-wish
TA Paris, Ord. 17 déc. 2021, n° N°2125366/2
Press release of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, November 24, 2021, « Bruno Le Maire, Alain Griset et Cédric O annoncent des mesures exceptionnelles à l’encontre de la place de marché Wish pour sensibiliser et mieux protéger les consommateurs »

Why is it necessary to register a trademark?

Written by Dreyfus24/02/2022

Registering your trademark allows you to protect it. For a French trademark, it must be registered with the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property), but the protection can be extended to the European Union (EUIPO) and internationally (WIPO). When a trademark is registered on the national territory, in order to extend its protection, it is possible to register the trademark within the European Union and internationally. There is a right of priority which allows to file other trademark applications while benefiting from the filing date of the first application. The priority period is six months for trademarks.

Before considering filing a trademark with an office, it is necessary to make sure that the trademark is not already registered by another person. It is then sufficient to consult the databases of the offices in which are grouped all the trademarks already registered or in the process of being registered. The notion of distinctiveness is important in industrial property.

Indeed, a trademark is any sign, symbol, logo or any external appearance that will allow the average consumer not to confuse the trademarks between them. Signs allow companies to distinguish themselves from each other. A brand can take many forms: word, name, slogan, logo or a combination of several of these elements. This notion of distinctiveness is essential for the registration of the trademark, it allows to avoid an opposition procedure to the registration of the trademark on the basis of infringement.

Protecting your trademark allows you to use it without someone else infringing on it or without the use of your trademark infringing on another. Indeed, when your trademark is registered by the office, it does not infringe on the goods and services of an earlier trademark. If a new trademark infringes on your trademark, it is possible to file an opposition to the registration of this trademark.

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.

« .au direct »: the new Australian namespace that will launch on March 24, 2022

Written by Dreyfus08/02/2022

On the 24th of March 2022, a new name space will launch in Australia: “.au direct”.

It is a new name space that enables Australian citizens, permanent residents and organizations registered in Australia to register domain names directly before the .au.

Instead of registering and using domain names in the traditional namespaces such “com.au”, or “org.au”, “net.au”, “gov.au”, “edu.au” etc., Australian internet users will be able to opt for simpler and shorter domain names directly ending with “.au”.

In fact, the new name space enables two application possibilities. You can register a completely new “.au direct” name that isn’t registered in any existing .au namespace. The second option is to register the exact match of an already existing .au domain that you hold.

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

Are trademark payment notices always to be trusted?

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?

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

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

Copyright in front of artificial intelligence

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

How did Miley Cyrus manage to register her eponymous trademark despite the existence of the earlier Cyrus trademark?

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?

Are we still really anonymous on social networks in 2021?

Written by Dreyfus10/11/2021

Anonymity on the Internet, or the eternal debate about social networks, raises more and more moral and legal questions with an exponential number of disputes brought before the courts.

The popularization of social networks is usually associated with anonymity, and therefore with the eternal debate about the lifting of anonymity in the face of the excesses of certain users. The murder in October 2020 of Professor Samuel Paty, targeted on social networks, or a wave of insults towards a candidate of Miss France at the end of 2020, have re-launched this discussion on the political scene. And especially the desire to add a section to the French legislative proposal “strengthening the respect of the principles of the Republic” to fight against online hate.

As a preliminary, it is interesting to really ask ourselves about anonymity on the Internet: are we really anonymous on the Internet?

The answer is no in most cases. Indeed, when we browse the Internet, an IP address anchors each of our researches. This address makes it possible to identify each device that connects to the Internet, even indicating the geographical location of the person.

This is one of the reasons why it is very difficult to leave no trace of your passage on the Internet, unless you are a very experienced technician.

The difficulty in reality is related to the obstacles linked to the recovery of these data allowing to identify a user, more than to the existence of anonymity stricto sensu. The Internet actors play a preponderant role in the possibility that some users have to hide their identity. This concealment has increased especially with social media.

The position of social networks

Social networks and other platforms argue that they are simply “host” or “technical intermediary” to reject a request to lift anonymity or to delete an account that is the author of contentious content.

Only a court decision can force these platforms to lift anonymity on an account. However, judicial decisions are still discreet. This can be explained on the one hand by the fact that positive law only allows the anonymity of an account to be lifted if the content is clearly illicit. On the other hand, the freedom of expression constitutes an obstacle to the lifting of anonymity.

However, some recent decisions seem to reverse this trend.

French jurisprudence on the move

On February 25, 2021, the Paris Judicial Court (Tribunal judiciaire, Paris, (ord. réf.), February 25, 2021, G. B. c/ Sté Twitter International Company) ordered Twitter to communicate the identification data of a user, in a case against a female Youtuber. Under Article 145 of the French Civil Procedural Code, “if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish before any trial the evidence of facts on which the solution of a dispute may depend, legally admissible measures of investigation may be ordered at the request of any interested party, on application or in summary proceedings. The influencer filed a request with the Court for the communication of identification data in parallel with the filing of a criminal complaint for defamation.

This communication of data by hosts is provided for by Article 6-II of the law of June 21, 2004. Indeed, this article provides for an obligation for hosts to hold and retain data allowing the identification of persons who have: “contributed to the creation of the content or of one of the contents of the services for which [they] are a provider”.

The Court granted the applicant’s request, as the existence of a legitimate reason was well established, namely the short duration of the storage of these identification data. The court thus ordered Twitter to disclose the necessary information:

♦ The types of protocols and the IP address used to connect to the platform

♦ The identifier used to create the account

♦ The date the account was created

♦ The first and last names or the company name of the account holder

♦ the pseudonyms used

♦ the associated e-mail addresses

The European court, also seized of the matter

The High Court of Ireland has referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union the issue of lifting anonymity in a case between Facebook Ireland and a school, whose staff was subjected to derogatory comments via an Instagram account (a platform recently acquired by Facebook).

The question posed to the CJEU, concerns the threshold of seriousness that allows an exception to the GDPR, which protects our personal data, and thus be able to condemn the platform concerned to lift the anonymity on the authors of the contentious content.

The answer of the CJEU, will not come before several months, however it will surely allow to have clearer criteria concerning the balance between the respect of freedom of expression, protection of personal data, and infringement of people.

These decisions could open the way to a more supervised and therefore better regulated anonymity on social networks. A growing body of case law in this area, could encourage the courts to more condemn more easily these platforms, to communicate these identification data in order to punish the illicit content that users publish too easily, taking refuge behind anonymity and freedom of expression.

Dreyfus is at your disposal to assist you in securing these projects.

ABOUT THIS TOPIC…

♦ How will the Digital Services Act change the legal framework for the Internet service?

Podcast – You, Me & IP : Intellectual property, Cybersecurity and malicious Domain Names: how to combine them?

Written by Dreyfus04/11/2021

podcast We are pleased to present the “You, Me & IP” Podcast – Episode 4 in which Nathalie Dreyfus, founder of Dreyfus & Associates is the guest of Carlos Northon, founder and CEO of Northen’s Media PR & Marketing Ltd.