Intellectual property law

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has necessitated the development of comprehensive frameworks to ensure their ethical and responsible use. In this context, the European Commission has introduced the third draft of the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, aiming to guide AI model providers in aligning with the stipulations of the EU AI ActRegulation (EU) 2024/1689). This article delves into the primary objectives of this draft and explores its future implications.

I – Objectives of the third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

A – Enhancing transparency

A cornerstone of the third draft is its emphasis on transparency. All providers of general-purpose AI models are mandated to disclose pertinent information about their models, including design specifications, training data sources, and intended applications. This initiative seeks to foster trust among users and stakeholders by ensuring they are well-informed about the functionalities and potential limitations of AI systems. Notably, certain open-source models are exempted from these transparency obligations, reflecting a nuanced approach to diverse AI development paradigms.

B – Addressing copyright concerns

The draft also tackles the intricate issue of copyright in AI development. Providers are required to implement measures that respect intellectual property rights, ensuring that AI models do not infringe upon existing copyrights. This includes establishing mechanisms for rights holders to report potential violations and for providers to address such claims effectively. The draft outlines that providers may refuse to act on complaints deemed “manifestly unfounded or excessive, particularly due to their repetitive nature.”

C – Ensuring safety and security

For AI models identified as posing systemic risks, the draft delineates additional commitments focused on safety and security. Providers of these advanced models are obligated to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, implement robust mitigation strategies, and establish incident reporting protocols. These measures aim to preemptively address potential threats and ensure that AI systems operate within safe and ethical boundaries.

II – Future perspectives of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

A – Implementation challenges

As the AI landscape continues to evolve, implementing the GPAI Code of Practice presents several challenges. Providers must navigate the complexities of aligning their operations with the Code’s requirements, which may necessitate significant adjustments in their development and deployment processes. Ensuring compliance without stifling innovation will be a delicate balance to maintain.

B – Global influence and harmonization

The GPAI Code of Practice has the potential to set a global benchmark for AI governance. By establishing comprehensive guidelines, the European Commission aims to influence international standards, promoting harmonization across jurisdictions. This could lead to a more cohesive global approach to AI regulation, benefiting both providers and users worldwide.

Alongside the third draft, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs are also introducing a dedicated executive summary and an interactive website. These resources aim to facilitate stakeholder input, both through written comments and discussions within working groups and specialized workshops. The final version of the Code is expected in May, serving as a compliance framework for general-purpose AI model providers under the AI Act, while integrating cutting-edge best practices.

C – Continuous evolution and adaptation

Recognizing the rapid pace of AI advancements, the Code is designed to be adaptable. It emphasizes the need for continuous evolution, allowing for updates and refinements that reflect technological progress and emerging ethical considerations. This flexibility ensures that the Code remains relevant and effective in guiding AI development responsibly.

Conclusion

The third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice represents a significant step toward responsible AI governance. By focusing on transparency, copyright respect, and safety, it lays a foundation for ethical AI development. As the cCde progresses toward finalization, its successful implementation will depend on collaborative efforts among stakeholders to address challenges and seize opportunities for global harmonization.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) now effectively neutralizes the reciprocity rule found in Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention for works originating from a third country outside the European Economic Area (EEE). This shift has immediate consequences for stakeholders in the fields of design and copyright, illustrating the expanding scope of EU copyright harmonization. Below, we outline the core aspects of this change, moving from the overarching principle to its practical implications in a structured manner.

Context and Legal Foundations

• The Berne Convention and EU Law
  We observe that the Berne Convention has historically allowed signatory states to apply a principle of reciprocity to artistic and applied works from countries that did not offer equivalent protection. Recently, however, the CJUE clarified that the harmonization achieved by European directives (notably Directive 2001/29/EC) supersedes individual Member States’ prerogative to rely on reciprocity in areas that the EU has fully regulated. This decision stems from the principle that only the EU legislator may introduce exceptions or limitations once an aspect of copyright law has been harmonized across Member States.
• Official Sources and Regulatory References
  According to the CJUE’s interpretation, Member States must refrain from applying reciprocity where EU law intends for equal treatment, irrespective of an author’s nationality or a work’s country of origin.

Key CJUE Decision of 24 October 2024

CJUE, 1re ch., 24 Oct. 2024, Aff. C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV c/ Vitra Collections AG
In its landmark ruling of 24 October 2024, the CJUE held that Member States cannot apply material reciprocity under Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention to refuse or limit copyright protection for works of applied art originating in a non-EEE country. By doing so, the Court confirmed that only the EU legislator may decide on any limitation to economic rights granted under harmonized directives. The decision underscores the principle that national rules tied to the country of origin become inoperative where the EU has established overarching copyright norms.

Impact on Protection for Artistic and Applied Works

• Extended Copyright for Third-Country Creations
  By neutralizing the reciprocity rule, the CJUE effectively grants works originating from countries outside the EEE a level of protection in line with EU standards, provided they meet the originality and other formal criteria under EU law. This shift primarily benefits foreign creators of designs, industrial models, and artworks who previously faced potential restrictions if their home jurisdictions did not offer reciprocal protection.
• Reinforced Harmonization and Legal Certainty
  From a business and innovation standpoint, uniform copyright protection across the EU promotes legal certainty. Designers, manufacturers, and distributors now operate under clearer guidelines, facilitating smoother market entry and fewer obstacles linked to a work’s geographic origin.

Practical Consequences for Rights Holders

• Easier Enforcement: Foreign authors or rights holders can assert their copyrights uniformly throughout the EU, without having to prove reciprocal treatment in their home country.
• Encouraged Cross-Border Collaboration: Companies in the EEE may confidently license or acquire designs from third countries, knowing that these rights enjoy robust backing under EU directives.
• Reassessment of Agreements: Existing contracts or licenses that assumed limited rights based on reciprocity might need a thorough legal review to align with the CJUE’s position.

Recommended Next Steps & Best Practices

• Monitor Legislative Updates: Future EU legislative initiatives may further define or refine limitations.
• Review IP Portfolios: Rights holders should ensure that new or ongoing filings for design or copyright registration reflect this updated landscape.
• Consult Specialized Counsel: Given the complexity of international IP rights, professional guidance is indispensable to navigate cross-border transactions effectively.

The CJUE takes on profound significance for EU copyright enforcement. We advise rights holders, designers, and businesses to adapt proactively to this refined legal environment.

• Subscribe to Our Newsletter: Stay informed about important rulings and policy shifts.
• Follow Us on social media: Engage with our professional community for timely updates and best practices.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we stand ready to provide comprehensive legal strategies tailored to each client’s needs. Our services include advising on copyright registration and enforcement, brand and design protection, domain name portfolio management, licensing and transfer negotiations, anti-counterfeiting initiatives, and litigation support across multiple jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys, ensuring comprehensive assistance for businesses worldwide.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to significant advancements in various fields, including technological innovation. AI systems are now capable of autonomously generating inventions without direct human intervention. This new reality raises a fundamental question in patent law: Can an invention generated by an AI be protected by a patent?

This complex issue is at the center of concerns for intellectual property offices and legislators worldwide, who are debating how patent law should adapt to this new form of innovation.

 Patent eligibility of AI-Generated inventions

Patentability criteria

Pursuant to the article L611-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code, to be eligible for a patent, an invention must meet three fundamental criteria:

• Novelty: The invention must not have been disclosed to the public before the patent application was filed.
• Inventive step: The invention must not be an obvious improvement for a person skilled in the art.
• Industrial application: The invention must be capable of being used in industry.

When an AI generates an invention, assessing these criteria becomes more complex. The originality of the invention largely depends on the training data and algorithms used by the AI. It then becomes difficult to determine whether the invention is truly novel or merely a reformulation of existing information.

Furthermore, the inventive step requires that an invention is not an obvious outcome of prior knowledge. However, if an AI is programmed to analyze a vast corpus of technical data and propose optimized solutions, can its invention be considered as involving sufficient creative effort?

Challenges in recognizing AI as an inventor

One of the major legal obstacles concerns the attribution of inventorship. Today, most legal frameworks require the inventor to be a natural person.

The European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have rejected patent applications where an AI was designated as the inventor.

For example, in January 2020, the EPO rejected two European patent applications in which the designated inventor was an artificial intelligence system named DABUS. This decision was based on the European Patent Convention (EPC), which states that only a human being can be recognized as an inventor.

The applicant, creator of DABUS, argued that this AI, based on artificial neural networks, had autonomously conceived the inventions. However, the EPO concluded that, under the EPC, the rights attached to inventorship, such as the right to be mentioned as an inventor or to assign a patent, can only be granted to natural or legal persons. AI systems, lacking legal personality, cannot be recognized as inventors.

This case highlights the legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property.

These decisions are motivated by the fact that only humans can be legally recognized as inventors, particularly due to legal rights and liability considerations.

This stance raises a dilemma: When human intervention is minimal or nonexistent in the invention process, who should be credited as the inventor?

Some experts suggest attributing inventorship to the AI user or the entity that controls the AI, but this approach remains highly debated.

Legislative developments

International Perspectives

Given the uncertainties surrounding AI and patentability, several initiatives are underway worldwide:

• The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has launched consultations on the impact of AI in patent law and is considering potential reforms to harmonize approaches among different countries.
• The United States has seen the emergence of several legislative proposals aimed at clarifying the legal status of AI-generated inventions, although no major reform has been adopted so far.

In the United States, in October 2023, the White House issued an executive order aimed at ensuring the safe and reliable development of artificial intelligence (AI). In response, the USPTO published, in February 2024, guidelines on the patentability of AI-assisted inventions.

These guidelines specify that:

• AI may contribute to an invention, but
• Only a human who has made a significant contribution to each claim can be legally recognized as an inventor.

This position aligns with previous court decisions affirming that the inventor must be a natural person. Thus, patent applications involving AI must explicitly name individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the invention, excluding the possibility of designating the AI itself as the inventor.

This regulatory development highlights the importance of clarifying the respective roles of humans and AI systems in the innovation process, to ensure adequate legal protection for inventions in the United States.

Recent changes in patent law

Some countries have already introduced legislative changes:

• South Africa became the first country to grant a patent to an AI-generated invention, although this remains an isolated case.
• Australia also examined the issue, and in a decision on July 30, 2021, the Federal Court admitted this possibility (Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879).

These developments show that the recognition of AI-generated inventions is an evolving topic, and regulators will likely need to clarify their stance to address the challenges posed by AI and intellectual property.

Practical Considerations for Innovators

Strategies for Protecting AI-Generated Inventions

Businesses and innovators must anticipate legal challenges by adopting suitable strategies:

• Ensure a human role in the invention process: A researcher or engineer should be sufficiently involved to be designated as the inventor.
• Document every stage of creation: Keeping detailed records of how the AI operates and its role in the invention is essential.
• Explore alternatives to patent protection: When patentability is uncertain, other forms of protection, such as trade secrets, may be considered.

Implications for Intellectual Property management

Companies must adapt their patent management strategies to the challenges posed by AI. It is advisable to:

• Update contracts to clearly define ownership of AI-generated inventions.
• Monitor legislative developments to anticipate possible regulatory changes.

Conclusion

The emergence of AI in innovation raises profound legal and ethical questions. Current patent law is not fully adapted to this new reality. Legislators and intellectual property offices must therefore adapt to address the challenges posed by autonomous AI-generated inventions.

Until regulatory clarifications are made, innovators must adopt proactive strategies to effectively protect their inventions and safeguard their intellectual property rights.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, patent and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

On February 7, 2025, the Paris Judicial Court issued a notable decision (Case No. RG 22/09210) in the dispute between Hermès International and Hermès Sellier against Blao&Co. This case raises essential questions regarding the protection of design works under French copyright law and trademark infringement. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the ruling, highlighting its implications for designers and fashion companies. 

Case Background

Hermès International and Hermès Sellier, renowned for their iconic Kelly and Birkin bags, discovered that Blao&Co had been selling handbags under the brand name “NDG” since 2021. These products, particularly the “Paisley Jane” model, were marketed through Blao&Co’s website, social media platforms, and as NFTs on OpenSea.

Claiming that these handbags reproduced the distinctive features of their protected models, Hermès sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to Blao&Co in March and April 2022, demanding the cessation of the infringing bags’ sale, as well as the associated NFTs. After receiving no satisfactory response, Hermès filed a lawsuit in July 2022 for copyright and trademark infringement.

Arguments of the Parties

Hermès’ Position

Hermès argued that Blao&Co’s “Paisley Jane” bags were an unauthorized reproduction of their Kelly and Birkin models, which are protected under copyright due to their originality. Additionally, Hermès claimed that Blao&Co unlawfully used their registered three-dimensional trademark, particularly the signature lock closure featured on their bags.

Blao&Co’s Defense

Blao&Co contested the originality of the Kelly and Birkin bags, arguing that their features were common to many handbags or dictated by technical constraints. The company also denied trademark infringement, asserting that the elements used were generic and did not infringe on Hermès’ rights.

Legal Analysis of the Court

Originality of the Kelly and Birkin Bags

The court first examined the originality of the Kelly and Birkin bags, an essential condition for copyright protection. It was established that the Kelly bag has a trapezoidal shape with side gussets, a cut-out flap, a specific closing system, a special handle, four basic studs and a removable shoulder strap. The Birkin bag, on the other hand, has a slightly rectangular shape, a flap with a three-notch cut-out, a specific closing system, two special handles, specific gussets and four basic studs. The court concluded that these features were the result of free and creative choices, giving the bags a distinctive and recognizable appearance, thus satisfying the criterion of originality required for copyright protection.

Trademark infringement

Concerning trademark infringement, the court noted that Hermès has held a three-dimensional trademark registered since 2003, covering in particular the distinctive clasp of its bags. Blao&Co’s “Paisley Jane” bags were found to reproduce this clasp in an identical or similar manner, creating a risk of confusion in the mind of the public. The court therefore concluded that Blao&Co had infringed the trademark.

Implications of the Decision

For Fashion Designers

This ruling reaffirms the importance of originality in the protection of design works under copyright law. Fashion designers are encouraged to:

• Develop distinctive and innovative designs to ensure effective legal protection against unauthorized copies.
• Consider registering their designs as trademarks or design rights for enhanced protection.

For Businesses

Businesses must exercise caution to ensure that their products do not infringe existing intellectual property rights. This case underscores the importance of:

• Conducting thorough legal research before launching new products.
• Consulting intellectual property attorneys to assess potential risks and avoid costly legal disputes.

Conclusion

The Paris Judicial Court’s decision of February 7, 2025, establishes a significant precedent in fashion design and trademark protection. It recognizes the originality of fashion creations as works protected under copyright law and reaffirms the enforcement of three-dimensional trademarks against infringement.

Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm: Your Intellectual Property Partner

The Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm assists designers, businesses, and industry professionals in defending their intellectual property rights. Specializing in trademarks, patents, and design law, our expert legal team helps protect, value, and defend your creations against infringement risks and legal disputes.

Contact us for a personalized consultation and safeguard your designs!

Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm is partnered with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property Law.

FAQ

In the rapidly evolving landscape of legal services, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force, particularly in the realm of intellectual property (IP) law.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the legal sector signifies a paradigm shift, offering tools that augment the capabilities of legal professionals. In the field of intellectual property, where precision and efficiency are paramount, AI serves as a catalyst for innovation and improved client service.

I – The role of AI in legal assistance

Automation of repetitive tasks

AI excels in automating routine tasks that traditionally consume significant time and resources. Document review, contract analysis, and due diligence are now expedited through AI-driven platforms, allowing legal practitioners to focus on more complex and strategic activities. For instance, AI can swiftly analyze vast amounts of legal documents to identify relevant information, thereby reducing the time spent on manual reviews.

Predictive analytics in legal decision-making

Beyond automation, AI offers predictive analytics capabilities that assist in forecasting legal outcomes. By analyzing historical case data, AI models can predict the likelihood of success in litigation, enabling lawyers to devise informed strategies. This predictive power is particularly beneficial in intellectual property disputes, where understanding potential case trajectories can inform negotiation and litigation approaches.

II – Impact on intellectual property consultancy

Enhancing efficiency and accuracy

In the realm of intellectual property consultancy, AI enhances both efficiency and accuracy. AI-powered tools can conduct comprehensive prior art searches, ensuring that patent applications are both novel and non-infringing. Additionally, AI aids in monitoring potential IP infringements by scanning global databases and marketplaces, providing timely alerts to rights holders. This proactive approach enables IP consultants to offer clients robust protection strategies.

Challenges and ethical considerations

While AI offers numerous benefits, its integration into legal services presents challenges and ethical considerations. Concerns regarding data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of client trust must be addressed. Legal professionals are tasked with ensuring that AI applications comply with existing regulations and uphold the profession’s ethical standards. This includes maintaining transparency in AI-driven analyses and safeguarding sensitive client information.

III – Recent governmental initiatives

National AI Strategies

Governments worldwide recognize the transformative potential of AI and are formulating strategies to harness its benefits responsibly. For example, the French government has launched a national AI strategy aimed at fostering innovation while ensuring ethical deployment across sectors, including the legal domain. Indeed, an information report titled “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Professions” was adopted on December 18, 2024. This strategy encompasses investments in AI research, development of regulatory frameworks, and initiatives to upskill the workforce in AI competencies.

Regulatory frameworks and compliance

To navigate the complexities of AI integration, regulatory bodies are establishing frameworks that promote innovation without compromising ethical standards. These regulations address issues such as data protection, accountability in AI decision-making, and the prevention of discriminatory practices. Legal professionals must stay abreast of these developments to ensure compliance and to advise clients effectively on AI-related matters.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence stands as a pivotal ally in the evolution of legal services, particularly within intellectual property consultancy. Its capacity to automate tasks and provide predictive insights not only enhances operational efficiency but also elevates the quality of client counsel. As AI continues to mature, its symbiotic relationship with legal professionals will undoubtedly redefine the landscape of legal practice.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

We are committed to integrating cutting-edge AI technologies to deliver unparalleled intellectual property services and  collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and data privacy law has introduced complex challenges and opportunities for businesses and regulators alike. The exponential growth of AI-powered systems, particularly those reliant on personal data, necessitates a balanced approach to innovation and compliance. This article explores how the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) addresses the complex legal issues raised by AI technologies, including accountability, data minimization, and lawful bases for processing, while highlighting recent case law and enforcement actions.

I – The legal foundations: AI and GDPR compliance

A – AI’s dependency on personal data

AI systems often require vast amounts of personal data to function effectively. From training large language models to deploying recommendation engines, personal data is indispensable. However, the GDPR imposes strict conditions on such processing, challenging AI developers to balance utility and privacy.

Key Issues Addressed by the GDPR:

• Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency (Art. 5 GDPR) : AI systems must be transparent in their data handling practices, ensuring individuals understand how their data is used.
• Purpose limitation (Art. 5 GDPR) : AI developers must define specific purposes for data processing and refrain from repurposing data without further legal justification.
• Data minimization (Art. 5 GDPR) : The principle mandates that only data necessary for the intended purpose is processed.

B – Lawful bases for AI data processing

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has clarified that legitimate interest may justify processing personal data in AI development, provided it passes a three-part test:

1. Identification of the legitimate interest.
2. Demonstration of necessity for processing.
3. Balancing this interest against individuals’ rights​​.

II – Key challenges in applying GDPR to AI

• Anonymization and Pseudonymization : The distinction between anonymized and pseudonymized data is critical in determining GDPR applicability. AI models trained on pseudonymized data remain subject to GDPR, whereas truly anonymized data falls outside its scope​.
• Transparency in complex systems : AI systems, particularly deep learning models, are often criticized as “black boxes,” making it difficult to explain how decisions are made. The GDPR’s right to explanation (recital 71) adds pressure on AI developers to enhance transparency.
• Cross-Border data transfers : AI systems relying on global data sources face scrutiny under GDPR’s strict data transfer rules. The recent Schrems II decision invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, compelling organizations to adopt alternative safeguards for lawful data transfers​​.

III – Enforcement and precedent: Lessons from case law

A – The OpenAI Case: Italy’s landmark fine

In December 2024, the Italian Data Protection Authority fined OpenAI €15 million for GDPR violations, including a lack of transparency, failure to verify user age, and insufficient safeguards for sensitive data. This case underscores the importance of robust compliance strategies in AI deployment​.

B – Meta platforms and data security breaches

The Irish Data Protection Commission’s €251 million fine against Meta highlighted the consequences of inadequate data breach notifications and poor system design​.

C – The European Commission’s Illegal Data Transfers

A 2025 ruling against the European Commission revealed unlawful data transfers to the US, emphasizing accountability even for public bodies​.

IV – Practical recommendations for AI developers and businesses

• Implement privacy by design and default : integrating privacy safeguards during the AI system’s design phase ensures compliance with GDPR’s data protection by design principle ( 25 GDPR).
• Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) : DPIAs are mandatory for high-risk AI systems processing personal data. These assessments help identify risks and mitigate potential non-compliance​.
• Strengthen transparency mechanisms : AI developers must provide clear, accessible privacy notices and explain automated decision-making processes, empowering users to exercise their rights effectively.
• Monitor regulatory developments : As the EU progresses with the AI Act, businesses must adapt to evolving legal landscapes to avoid penalties and maintain consumer trust.

V – Future Outlook: navigating AI’s legal landscape

The interplay between AI innovation and data protection laws will intensify as technologies evolve. The EU AI Act, set to harmonize regulations across member states, aims to create a comprehensive framework that addresses both risks and benefits of AI systems. Businesses that proactively align their operations with GDPR principles will not only mitigate legal risks but also gain a competitive edge in a privacy-conscious market.

Conclusion : Striking a balance

The relationship between AI and personal data protection exemplifies the tension between innovation and regulatory compliance. By embracing GDPR principles, businesses can harness AI’s transformative potential while respecting individual rights. This dual focus on efficiency and accountability will define the future of AI in an increasingly regulated world.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, our recognized expertise in intellectual property and new technologies is at your service to guide you through the intricate challenges posed by artificial intelligence and data protection.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys.

Join us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram 

FAQ

Since its inception, Dreyfus has established itself as a leader in the management of intellectual property rights (IPR) on a European scale. Faced with the rise of global trade and the growing challenges posed by counterfeiting, the company provides invaluable support to organizations of all sizes to protect and enhance their intangible assets. This article highlights recent trends in the enforcement of IPR in the European Union (EU), drawing on major jurisprudence to illustrate current challenges and solutions.

An Overview of the Fight Against Counterfeiting in Europe

The year 2023 marked a significant milestone in the EU’s efforts to combat counterfeiting. Over 152 million counterfeit items were intercepted, with an estimated value of approximately 3.4 billion euros. This represents a 77% increase compared to the previous year, highlighting the growing effectiveness of surveillance and enforcement measures, thanks to international cooperation and technological advancements.

Most Affected Product Categories

Products such as “Games,” “Toys,” and “Recorded CDs/DVDs” dominate the seizures in terms of volume. However, the rise in violations involving “packaging materials” and “labels” reveals a new trend where counterfeiters use neutral components to evade customs controls. This strategy was addressed in Coty Germany GmbH v. Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-567/18, CJUE, 2020), where the Court clarified the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms. Essentially, the company is not liable for trademark infringement unless it actively participates in offering or marketing counterfeit products.

Performance by Member States

Ten European countries stand out for their major contributions to seizures, with Italy taking the lead (74% of intercepted items). France, Romania, and Spain are also key players in these enforcement operations. The importance of cross-border cooperation was underscored in Top Logistics BV v. Bacardi & Company Ltd (C-379/14, CJUE, 2015), which clarified the conditions for seizing goods in transit within the EU

Transportation and Evasion Strategies

Counterfeiters exploit various transportation methods to move their products. Postal shipments account for 37% of cases, while maritime transport dominates in terms of volume, with containers holding thousands of items. This diversity underscores the need to adapt control methods to each logistical channel.

Trademarks at the Heart of Infringements

Trademarks are the most targeted rights, accounting for 84% of recorded infringements in 2023. Copyright violations (7%) and designs (3%) also raise concerns, particularly for high-profile brands.

Dreyfus: A Strategic Partner for IPR Protection

As an intellectual property specialist, Dreyfus offers key services to counter infringements:

1. Proactive Monitoring: The company uses advanced technologies to detect potential violations in physical and online markets.
2. Legal Management: With solid legal expertise, Dreyfus assists clients in IPR-related disputes by collaborating with national and international authorities.
3. Training and Awareness: By educating companies on the best prevention strategies, Dreyfus helps strengthen their internal capabilities.
4. Institutional Partnerships: The company works closely with organizations such as the EUIPO to enhance protection measures in the European market.

Future Challenges and Perspectives

Several challenges remain:

• Local Assembly: Counterfeiters use innovative strategies to assemble unbranded products in Europe, avoiding border seizures. In Nintendo v. BigBen Interactive (CJUE, C-25/16, 2018), the CJUE confirmed that intellectual property rights apply even when production stages are outsourced.
• E-commerce: The speed of online transactions complicates the detection and tracking of infringements. This issue was highlighted in Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08, CJUE, 2010), which clarified the responsibilities of advertising platforms.
• Regional Disparities: Differences in resources and priorities among member states hinder a coordinated response. The case Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Aldi Süd (TGI Paris, 2019) illustrates the impact of variable standards on protecting geographical indications within the EU.

To address these challenges, Dreyfus advocates for a comprehensive approach based on technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data, as well as better harmonization of procedures across the European Union.

Conclusion

The year 2023 represents a turning point in the fight against counterfeiting in Europe. Thanks to a combination of concerted efforts, technological innovations, and landmark judicial decisions, the EU is better equipped to tackle these threats. Dreyfus positions itself as a key player in supporting companies in this essential battle, contributing to the protection of intangible assets and the preservation of European competitiveness. With concerted efforts and innovative solutions, it is possible to significantly reduce the impact of counterfeiting on the economy and society.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys to provide tailored legal solutions

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram