Why does the willingness to sell a domain name is not conditioned on an active approach?

Written by Dreyfus18/05/2021

(OMPI, Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation, 23 février 2021, affaire n° D2020-3322, Netflix Inc. c. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Siddharth Sethi)

Avons-nous encore besoin d’introduire Netflix ? Cette plateforme proposant des services de streaming vidéo compte 195 millions de membres dans plus de 190 pays et semble être connue dans le monde entier. Pourtant, certaines personnes tentent de se soustraire à cette notoriété pour tenter de se construire une légitimité artificielle et justifier l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine .

En effet, alors que la société Netflix détient de nombreux enregistrements dans le monde pour le signe « NETFLIX » en tant que marque , la société a détecté l’enregistrement du nom de domaine <netflix.store> . En conséquence, elle a déposé une plainte auprès du Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation de l’OMPI pour obtenir son transfert.

Le nom de domaine, enregistré le 3 septembre 2017, pointe vers une page qui présente une animation composée d’un effet d’éclatement de couleur et se termine par un écran de couleur vierge.
Le titulaire soutient que le nom de domaine ne reproduit pas la marque NETFLIX mais est plutôt composé de deux termes , “net” et “flix”. Or, comme prévu, l’expert considère que la marque NETFLIX est reproduite à l’identique dans le nom de domaine.
L’expert considère que si l’utilisation du nom de domaine n’est pas commerciale, son enregistrement ne serait pas non plus considéré comme légitime. En effet, le site mis en place vise à légitimer l’enregistrement afin de dissimuler l’intention de vendre le nom de domaine au Plaignant. Ni la reproduction de la marque NETFLIX dans le nom de domaine litigieux, ni l’extension <.store> n’ont de sens si le projet devait effectivement être non commercial.

En conséquence, il estime que l’intimé n’a aucun droit ou intérêt légitime sur le nom de domaine .
Par ailleurs, l’expert constate que le Défendeur connaissait le Plaignant et son activité et prévoyait qu’en achetant le nom de domaine, il serait en mesure de le revendre au Plaignant avec un bénéfice significatif. Cette stratégie a été partiellement couronnée de succès, car Netflix a fait une offre que l’intimée a refusée, essayant d’obtenir une somme considérablement plus élevée.

Or, l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine qui correspond à la marque d’un Plaignant avec l’intention de le vendre au Plaignant lui-même , établit la mauvaise foi. L’expert précise que le titulaire « [n’aurait pu] raisonnablement penser qu’un tiers serait en mesure d’utiliser commercialement le Nom de domaine litigieux ». Il convient également de noter que l’intimé a tenté de faire croire à la personne qui l’a contacté qu’il avait reçu d’autres offres plus élevées. En effet, le représentant de Netflix, qui n’avait pas indiqué qu’il agissait pour Netflix, ce qui était un secret de polichinelle, avait proposé la somme de 2 000 USD, que le déclarant jugeait trop faible.

L’expert commente ce comportement récurrent de certains cybersquatteurs : « Peu importe que le Défendeur n’ait pas proposé activement à la vente le Nom de domaine litigieux. Il n’est pas rare que des déclarants opportunistes de noms de domaine incluant une marque tierce attendent d’être approchés, réalisant qu’une offre active de vente du nom de domaine peut faciliter un procès UDRP à leur encontre ».

En conséquence, l’expert conclut que le nom de domaine litigieux a été enregistré et est utilisé de mauvaise foi et ordonne ainsi son transfert au Plaignant.

Sauf dans les cas où un nom de domaine reproduisant une marque notoire telle que NETFLIX est utilisé à des fins de critique sans usage commercial, ou pour un usage commercial minimal, il est quasiment inconcevable d’imaginer qu’un tel nom de domaine ait pu être enregistré de bonne foi . Netflix savait évidemment qu’elle gagnerait le procès, mais a visiblement choisi d’essayer de négocier un rachat à l’amiable pour un budget légèrement inférieur à celui d’une procédure UDRP, si l’on compte les 1 500 USD d’honoraires et les honoraires d’avocat. Cette approche, si elle réussissait, aurait permis d’économiser du temps et de l’argent, mais la simple offre de rachat a pour effet d’encourager le cybersquattage.

International designs: why has Belarus ratified the Hague Agreement?

Written by Dreyfus10/05/2021

Over the past two decades, like other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Belarus has focused its efforts on the transition to a knowledge-based economy. To do so, the government is supporting the development of an innovation ecosystem that fosters business growth and the country’s long-term economic viability. Strengthening the national intellectual property system is at the heart of this project.

The Hague system offers the owner of an industrial design the possibility of obtaining protection for his design in several countries by filing a single application in one language with a single Office.

This system is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland.

Since May 13, 2015, the United States and Japan can be designated as countries for the registration of an international design. Most recently, Belarus joined the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs.

As a general rule, industrial design protection is limited to the country in which it was granted. The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs provides for an international registration procedure: the applicant can make a single international deposit, with WIPO. The holder can designate as many Contracting Parties as he wishes.

An international registration produces the same effects as those of a registration effected directly in each of the countries designated by the applicant, provided that protection is granted by the competent Office of such country.

On April 19, 2021, Belarus deposited its instrument of accession to the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague Agreement with the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Republic of Belarus becomes the 66th Contracting Party to the 1999 Act and the 75th member of the Hague Union.

This accession brings the total number of countries covered by the Hague system to 92, expanding the system’s coverage further into the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

This Agreement allows the registration of an industrial design in several countries through a single application to the International Bureau of WIPO.

The advantages of such an international design filing are numerous.

On the one hand, it considerably reduces formalities while offering registration in several countries. On the other hand, it makes it possible to simplify the subsequent management of the design as all the acts necessary for the protection of this design, such as renewal or registrations, will be carried out through a single procedure.

Besides, it is interesting to note that, unlike the international trademark system, no prior national application or registration is necessary to apply for an international design.

Finally, the only limit to this international industrial design system is the number of members. Indeed, only the States members of the Hague Agreement as revised on several occasions and in particular by the Geneva Act of 1999, can be designated by this international registration.

In other words, and once again in a manner comparable to the international mark, in order to designate certain countries, the applicant will have to file a national design and will have to go through the accompanying formalities.

However, while there are to date 95 member countries to the Madrid Agreement and to the Protocol relating to this arrangement concerning the international registration of marks, there are unfortunately only 64 members for the international registration of industrial designs and models. Several countries are therefore missing, including countries such as Australia, China, the Russian Federation, Ireland and Mexico.

Since July 19, 2021, Belarusian businesses and designers will be able to start using the Hague System to protect their designs internationally by filing a single international application covering up to 100 designs.

What are the new cookies regulations?

Written by Dreyfus04/05/2021

The Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) affects how you, as a website owner, can use cookies and online tracking of visitors from the European Union.

Wednesday March 31, 2021 was the very last limit set by the National Commission for Informatics and Freedoms (Cnil), for French advertisers to comply with European rules relating to cookies.

From Thursday, April 1, 2021, the banner on websites is required to enable much more explicitly Internet users to “refuse” these computer tracers much more explicitly.

This is one of the measures voted in 2016 by the European Union in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and entered into force in May 2018 in all 28 (now 27) member states.

When they browse the web or use mobile applications, Internet users are increasingly followed by various actors (service editors, advertising agencies, social networks, etc.) who analyze their browsing, their movements and their consultation or consumption habits, in particular in order to provide them with targeted advertising or personalized services.

This tracing is carried out by means of various technical tools, “tracers“, of which cookies are a part.

Cookies are small pieces of text inserted into your browser while you are browsing the web.

There are various types of cookies and have multiple uses: they can be used to remember your customer ID with a merchant site, the current content of your shopping cart, the language of the web page, an identifier allowing to track your navigation for statistical or advertising purposes, etc.

They are a source of concern for many users, while others are not even aware of their existence apart from the mandatory pop-ups on all websites that ask you to “Accept cookies“.

If you are a website owner, it is important that you make sure that the management of cookies and consent on your site complies with the very strict requirements of the GDPR.

In France, the National Commission for Informatics and Liberties (CNIL) carries out numerous checks and issues sanctions for non-compliance with the GDPR and French legislation.

Your website is required under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to allow European users to control the activation of cookies and trackers that collect their personal data.

This is the essential point of consent to the use of cookies according to the GDPR – and the future of our digital infrastructures.

The CNIL reminds that the consent requirement provided for by these provisions refers to the definition and the conditions provided for in Articles 4 and 7 of the GDPR.

It must therefore be free, specific, enlightened, unambiguous and the user must be able to withdraw it, at any time, with the same simplicity with which he has granted it.

In order to remind and clarify the law applicable to the deposit and reading of tracers in the user’s terminal, the CNIL adopted guidelines on September 17, 2020, supplemented by a recommendation aimed in particular at proposing examples of modalities consent collection practices.

Consent must be manifested by a positive action of the user, informed beforehand, in particular, of the consequences of his or her choice and having the means to accept, refuse and withdraw his or her consent. Appropriate systems must therefore be put in place to collect consent in practical ways that allow Internet users to benefit from easy-to-use solutions.

Acceptance of general conditions of use cannot be a valid method of obtaining consent.

The CNIL will therefore now carry out checks to assess compliance with the rules relating to tracers, in application of article 82 of the Data Protection Act and articles 4 and 7 of the RGPD on consent, as summarized in its guidelines.

Through this action, the CNIL intends to meet the expectations of Internet users who are increasingly sensitive to Internet tracking issues, as evidenced by the constant complaints it receives on this subject.

If breaches are noted following checks or complaints, the CNIL may use all the means made available to it in its repressive chain and issue, if necessary, formal notices or public sanctions.

The evolution of the applicable rules, clarified by the guidelines and the recommendation of the CNIL, marks a turning point and progress for Internet users, who will now be able to exercise better control over online tracers.

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

How does the bad faith duplicate between registration and bad faith use?

Written by Dreyfus29/04/2021

UDRP While one generally refers to the “three criteria” of the UDRP (a trademark similar to the domain name; the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the defendant in the disputed domain name; and the bad faith of the registrant), it should be kept in mind that bad faith in UDRP matters has two aspects: the first is bad faith registration and the second is bad faith usage. Therefore, proving only one of these elements is insufficient even though it may be considered “fair” that a name used in bad faith should be transferred to the applicant.
In the present case, Great American Hotel Group, Inc. complained that its former vice-president retained the domain name <greatamericanhg.com> and changed the password of the account used to manage this name with the registrar.

It all started in 2011 when the applicant decided to adopt the name Great American Hotel Group. Its president at the time asked Mr. Greene, then vice-president of the company, to reserve the domain name <greatamericanhg.group>.
The latter did so, but – apparently without notifying his superior – reserved the domain name in his name instead of that of the company. He did, however, record the company’s postal address, and pay with the company card. In 2012, he hired an anonymity service to hide his data.

Since its registration, the name had been used for the company and Mr. Greene had always treated the domain name as part of the company’s assets.

However, following disagreements, Mr. Greene was suspended from office in 2015 and dismissed in 2016. In 2017, the name was renewed by the company’s technical teams even though Mr. Greene was no longer present. However, the latter subsequently changed the password so that the name could no longer be renewed by the company. The applicant’s counsel proceeded to send Mr. Greene a letter of formal notice, which remained unanswered, leading to the filing of a UDRP complaint.

The panellist acknowledged that the applicant had common law trademark rights through the use of the sign “Great American” and that the registrant did not have any legitimate rights or interest in the name as it was created for the applicant company.
He also acknowledged that the domain name was used by Mr. Greene in bad faith.

Nevertheless, the panellist was more sceptical regarding the issue of bad faith registration. Indeed, the name had been reserved by Mr. Greene at the request of the president of the applicant company, which, in principle, had, in fact, been a registration in good faith.

In order for registration by an employee to qualify as having been done in bad faith, the panellist specified that the employee must have, from the beginning, had “an intention to cause harm”. Therefore, the evaluation must be factual and done on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, Mr. Greene had registered the domain name in his own name. The panellist found that “this may be subject to questioning, and the fact that he did not mention the company does not constitute a good domain name management practice”, however, the president and the company seemed to be equally as uninterested in formalizing the reservation of the name.

For four years, until he was suspended from his functions, the registrant had always displayed conduct that demonstrated that he understood that the name belonged to the company. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that by reserving the name four years earlier, he had intended to compete with the applicant or to benefit from some type of tactical advantage against him.

Consequently, the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed as the registration in bad faith had not been established. Nevertheless, the panellist specified that the applicant could turn to other avenues to try to obtain relief.

The significance of this decision, in addition to highlighting the dual condition of bad faith, is that it reiterates the need to set up an internal naming charter to avoid any dispersion of assets, both in terms of trademarks and domain names.

How to protect your brands in the digital era?

Written by Dreyfus26/04/2021

“Intellectual property was viewed with passion – and in a style steeped in pre-Romanticism! – as “the most sacred, the most legitimate, the most unassailable […], the most personal of properties”; “The least likely to be contested, the one whose increase can neither hurt republican equality, nor overshadow freedom,” said Patrick Tafforeau in his book Intellectual Property Law published in 2017.

It should be borne in mind that intellectual property is protected by law. This protection is notably achieved through patents, copyright and trademark registrations. These intellectual property rights allow creators to obtain a certain form of recognition or even a financial advantage from their inventions, plant varieties or creations.

In this sense, paragraph 1 of article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that: “The author of a work of the mind enjoys on this work, by the sole fact of his creation, of an exclusive and intangible property right enforceable against all”.

In fact, the Internet has created tremendous opportunities for companies in terms of communicating their brand message. However, its global reach, openness, versatility and the fact that it is largely unregulated are all elements that have created fertile ground for trademark infringement such as counterfeiting.

For a long time, real world activity and Internet activity were separated. Today, the two worlds undeniably tend to come together. Trademark law is therefore very useful in defending yourself in the digital era. By appropriately balancing the interests of innovators with those of the general public, the intellectual property system aims to foster an environment conducive to the flourishing of creativity and innovation.

When you create a company or launch a product, know that it is recommended to protect your trademark (which can be the name of your company, a logo, numbers, letters, etc. …). This registration will protect your company from counterfeiting.

Once registered, the trademark is an industrial property title which gives you a monopoly of exploitation for a period of ten years, renewable indefinitely.

Registering your trademark gives you an exclusive right to a sign that distinguishes the products or services you offer from those of your competitors, which is a significant competitive advantage ! As such, your sign is protected for the categories of goods and services referred to in your trademark registration and in the territory for which said registration is accepted.

In this perspective, it is necessary to put in place a strategy for the protection of your brand as soon as possible. Before filing a trademark, it is important to make sure that it is available and that there is no owner of an earlier right to that trademark. You must therefore be the first to register this mark.

The reasons why trademark registration is becoming a necessity are multiplying in the face of the phenomenon of cybersquatting. Thus, owners of registered trademarks benefit from new advantages in the defense of their rights on the Internet.

First, it has become increasingly important to protect your brand on social media. Since 2009, Facebook has allowed its members to create usernames, easily accessible, but which can include brands. Prior to 2009, Facebook allowed registered trademark owners to identify their trademarks and prevent their use by other members.

Most social networks register user names on a “first come, first served” basis. In order to defend your rights, it is preferable to have a registered trademark in order to report a violation of trademark rights, according to the general conditions of use of social networks.

Secondly, the presence of a mark on the Internet also imposes its protection in referencing on search engines and in particular paid referencing. Through the AdWords system, Google allows advertisers to select keywords so that their ads will appear to Internet users after entering those words into a search. Conflicts arise when advertisers buy keywords that contain brands, but do not have rights to them.

Owning a trademark right then also becomes extremely useful in the fight against unfair practices.

Thirdly, the proliferation of new gTLD domain name extensions must also attract the attention of trademark owners. To date, more than 300 new gTLDs have been delegated, and gradually hundreds more will follow. Faced with the risk of conflicts with protected trademarks, a new tool is made available to trademark rights holders: The Trademark Clearinghouse. It is a centralized declarative database of registered trademarks. Once the trademark is registered, the holder benefits from the priority registration period for new gTLDs – Sunrise Period – and is notified when a third party wishes to register a domain name identical or similar to its trademark. The registrant of the disputed domain name is also informed that he may infringe trademark rights.

Finally, if a domain name reproducing or containing a trademark is registered, the trademark rights holder has the possibility of taking action against cybersquatters using dedicated extrajudicial procedures such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and the Uniform Domain Resolution Policy (UDRP). These dedicated procedures are only open to trademark holders.

It should be remembered that the business landscape has changed with the rise of the Internet and, in order to thwart the risks of intellectual property infringements on online markets, it is important that companies adapt their management of industrial property rights portfolio accordingly.

Nathalie Dreyfus – Industrial Property Attorney, Expert at the Paris Court of Appeal, Founder & Director of Cabinet Dreyfus in Paris – Dreyfus.fr

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

Why is claiming unregistered trademark rights over a geographical name a difficult challenge in UDRP proceedings?

Written by Dreyfus22/04/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens to the domain name reserved by the franchisee once the contractual relations have been broken?

Written by Dreyfus20/04/2021

One of the key elements of the franchise is the authorisation given by the franchisor to the franchise to exploit its trademark. In such contracts, it is key to define precisely the terms of use.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC (“Century 21”) is a renowned real estate company, founded in 1971 and managing 8000 franchised agencies in 80 countries. In particular, it owns the trademark C21, protected in Montenegro.

Century 21 filed a complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to obtain the transfer of the domain name <c21fresh.me> registered on November 14, 2012 by Lika Ivanoc, which belongs to the Fresh d.o.o. company in Montenegro, also specialized in real estate.

Century 21 asserts that in the past the Respondent has been a member of its network of franchisees but that this is no longer the case. Realogy Group LLC, another parent company of Century 21, was reported to have entered into an agreement with a Serbian company, Real Estate d.o.o.

According to this agreement, which the Complainant does not provide, Real Estate d.o.o was authorized to use the trademarks of Century 21 and to enter into sub-franchises.

This agreement would have expired in 2014.

The Complainant explains that in 2015, the parent company of the Respondent, Century 21 Fresh Real Estate, was notified of the end of the contract of franchise. The letter stated that Century 21 did not know if Century 21 Fresh Real Estate was commercially connected to Real Estate d.o.o.

In the absence of any response, Century 21 filed a complaint to the Montenegrin Trade Inspection, and after that, Century 21 Fresh Real Estate has been ordered to withdraw the trademark from the photographs published on the web site www.realitica.com.

The above situation is quite complex.

To begin with, the Respondent did not reply to the complaint, which would have eventually clarified the situation and the possible links, even the indirect ones, between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The expert acknowledges the similarity between the domain name <c21fresh.me> and the C21 trademark. However, he does not issue commentaries on the legitimate interest of the registrant and directly moves on to rule on the question of registration in bad faith.

He notes that if the Complainant clearly indicates that the Respondent was part of its franchisees network, it also had a letter sent to the Respondent’s parent company, suggesting that it was not sure that the Respondent was actually part of this network.

It might be surprising how little control Century 21 has over its network of franchisees and sub-franchisees. However, the name of the Respondent’s parent company appeared on the site of one of the franchises of the Complainant, which suggests that the Respondent was indeed a member of the franchise network.

The expert notices that during the course of this agreement Real Estate d.o.o. and the sub-franchisees had the authorization to use the trademarks of Century 21. Thus, the domain name has certainly been registered within this framework. Unless a clear clause in the contract prohibits to register domain names, it is difficult to consider that the domain name has been registered in bad faith in 2012.

The experts relies on a previous case, Elders Limited v. Private Company, No. D2007-1099, in which the expert concluded that the name registered by the franchisee was part of its activity even without the franchisor’s express authorisation. In the absence of evidence of other motivations that might have pushed the Respondent to register the domain name, the registration was considered to be in good faith.

The question then arises as to whether the renewal of the domain name <c21fresh.me> after the end of the contract of franchise can define a new starting point for the criterion of registration in bad faith. Referring to the WIPO Overview 3.0, the expert indicates that the simple renewal of the domain name cannot qualify a bad faith registration. Consequently, the complaint is rejected.

This decision shows that it is always preferable, for a company, to be the owner of the domain names used by its partners, such as franchisees, even if the latter are the ones exploiting them. At the very least, drafting a contractual provision is essential, specifying the way in which the trademarks of the franchise can be operated and if such use includes the registration of domain names, under which conditions, which charter to respect and when these names must be returned. The same problem can arise for social media accounts.

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Please feel free to contact us.

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Nov. 9, 2020, Case D2020-0008, Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Luka Ivanoc, Fresh Realestate

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

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2021

Next applications for new <.mark> extensions will finally be expected towards the end of the year 2022. Unlike the last application period in 2011, this period gives the opportunity for companies to evaluate the economic and strategic opportunity that the <.mark> represents and prepare their file carefully. An effective application process is divided into three phases: in the first phase, companies must assess the practicality of having their own extension.

Then, the application, which includes a business plan, can be prepared.
Finally, the third phase is the submission of the application. ICANN’s applications processing includes other stages that can slow down the process, such as an assessment of the wholeness of the application and a verification of fees of presentation. For this reason, companies must submit their complete applications as soon as possible.

Can ICANN provide a solution for IT security problems?

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2021

The DNS NEWS report No. 271 highlights the overall criticism of ICANN solution for not intervening as much as its powers allow in Internet security issues, even though the DNS breaches do not decrease the number of hits. A sort of criticism derives from this observation: should ICANN become a kind of Internet welfare state or should it remain in the background, which would be recommended by the defenders of Internet neutrality.

It should be noted that in 2018, ICANN solution had already undertaken measures to make the Internet a little more secure, by changing the cryptographic key used to protect the Internet’s address book, the DNS (Domain Name System). However, further efforts are expected.
Domain Name System. – V. ICANN, 16 sept. 2018, Approved Board Resolutions [ R]egular Meeting of the ICANN Board).

Source: Dns-news.fr, date, rapp. n° 271,

To discover…

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

How to develop a reliable and flexible compliance strategy for intellectual property professionals?

Written by Dreyfus13/04/2021

With the rise of the digital age, setting up a reliable and effective compliance strategy as well as mobilizing the skills of professionals have become key factors in the company’s performance, particularly in the field of intellectual property.

From the outset, it seems important to remember that compliance includes all the processes intended to ensure that a company, its managers and its employees comply with the legal and ethical standards applicable to them.

FromLAW No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life. on anti-corruption measures to the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (GDPR) of April 27, 2016, and including the duty of vigilance of parent companies and ordering companies (law of March 27, 2017) or the prevention of cyber risk (implementing decree of May 25, 2018 of the NIS directive), an undeniable operational impact on companies and their managers can be observed.

Likewise, the challenges and risks of intellectual property have increased in the virtual world. Domain names as well as social networks are likely to be the targets of multiple attacks.

The key challenges of compliance with regards to intellectual property risks (I) raise questions both about the practical consequences of compliance in all aspects of intellectual property the role of the “compliance officer” in this framework (II) and the role of the “compliance officer” in this framework (III).

The challenges of intellectual property compliance

The environment as well as legal decisions revolve around the long-term development of the company and justify the establishment of real legal engineering within companies whose intellectual property is decisive. This is the key challenge of compliance, which is both a framework for thinking and a method of solving problems, involving a large number of tools and components oriented by company strategy.

Legal, regulatory and fiscal constraints are increasingly stringent and make companies bear increased responsibility in case of negligence, or even simple inaction. In particular, the regulatory framework sets out increased requirements regarding the protection of consumers and personal data.

In the field of intellectual property, domain names are key assets to contemplate when analyzing the risks and drafting compliance plans. While they are a major asset, essential to the very functioning of the business (for example, for e-mail servers, they are also risk vectors: phishing, fraud, identity theft, forged e-mail …

Online fraud can lead to loss of turnover, endangerment of consumers, and if so, risks of civil or criminal liabilities of directors for non-compliance with enforceable laws and regulations. impact the stock market price, thus causing loss of customers.

It is therefore very important to put in place the appropriate strategies to anticipate dangers, react effectively in the event of a breach and ultimately protect the company.

The practical consequences of compliance in all aspects of intellectual and digital property

Compliance has an immediate impact on all aspects of intellectual property. Also, while the legislation is more and more restrictive for companies and intellectual property professionals, compliance requirements are reinforced. How to bring your company into compliance with the laws? What are the risks of not including the Internet in your compliance plan?

Beyond its legal meaning of compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, Codes or even directives, compliance aims to protect the company and intellectual property professionals against any non-compliance with internal and external standards and its values. Intellectual property frauds are growing and becoming increasingly complex in the digital era, which requires taking action to mitigate risks for the company business, including in terms of compliance. Its objective is to avoid adverse consequences for the company and its managers, both financial and civil or criminal liability, or damage to image and reputation. It is ultimately part of a desire for lasting growth in all aspects of intellectual property, both in France and internationally.

To cope with these new standards, companies must put in place a governance policy capable of minimizing their exposure to risk vis-à-vis their customers, their shareholders, but also regulatory authorities.

To begin with, it is essential to identify the risks through the relevant audits.

Then, it is important to assess those risks and map them. The risk management policy shall be defined accordingly.

In particular, a policy for the management of Intellectual Property related risks calls for a virtually systematic surveillance system of trademarks among domain names.

The role of the “compliance officer”

The compliance officer must protect the company from any risk of non-compliance, and therefore ensure that the organization adopts good conduct in business practice, respects the rules of ethics and finally, complies with the various laws, regulations, or even European directives. It must therefore undertake a proactive approach, organize and implement the means necessary to comply with the regulations.

Likewise, it is important to anticipate risks: once they have been defined and supervised, the mission of the compliance officer being to protect the group and its reputation, he will have to analyze the rules and standards according to the context, the activity, and the business sector.

According to a study “Who are compliance professionals?” published on March 27, 2019 and carried out by the firm Fed Legal, 92% of compliance officers have a legal background. They are operational professionals who have a strategic vision as well as a multiplicity of soft skills, in particular an ability to persuade and an interest for teaching. In addition, 60% of compliance officers belong to legal services in which there are many recruitments, both in large and small companies.

When a company is questioned, the consequences are at the same time financial, commercial and human: the company reputation will suffer greatly. The compliance officer thus takes care of protecting his company from the financial, legal and reputational risks that it incurs in the event that it does not comply with laws, regulations, conventions, or quite simply a certain code of ethics or professional conduct.