Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
Contact

Intellectual property law

Contestation procedures for designs: Understanding the legal framework

Written by Dreyfus20/01/2025

Table of contents

  1. Key differences between besigns and trademarks
  2. Legal framework in France
    • Judicial nature of contestation
    • Grounds for contestation
  3. Legal framework in the european union
    • Administrative options at EUIPO
    • Grounds for contestation in the EU
  4. Procedural differences
  5. The impact of the EU design package
  6. Practical tips for protecting and contesting designs
  7. Recent case studies and emerging trends
  8. Industry-specific considerations in design contestation
  9. Economic impact of design protection
  10. The future of design law: Trends and innovations
  11. Integrating sustainability into design protection
  12. Collaboration between legal and creative teams
  13. Cultural and geographic influences in design protection

In the field of intellectual property, contesting designs is a highly specialized area requiring legal precision and strategic insight. Unlike trademarks, designs lack specific administrative procedures, such as opposition or invalidity actions, making judicial procedures the primary route for contestation. In this article, we explore the legal framework, grounds, and procedures involved in contesting designs, providing actionable insights for businesses and legal professionals alike.

  1. Key differences between designs and trademarks

Designs, protected under the French Intellectual Property Code (CPI), serve to safeguard the appearance of a product. Unlike trademarks, which benefit from administrative opposition processes, designs can only be contested through judicial actions.

Key distinctions include:

  • No opposition mechanism: Designs do not benefit from an EUIPO-like opposition procedure.
  • Broader protection scope: While trademarks protect distinctive signs, designs focus on the aesthetic and functional aspects of a product.

Example: A French company attempted to register a design for furniture that closely resembled an existing trademark-protected logo. The court ruled in favor of the trademark holder, demonstrating the broader implications of aesthetic overlaps.

  1. Legal framework in France

Judicial nature of contestation

In France, designs are governed by the French Intellectual Property Code (CPI). Unlike trademarks, there are no administrative opposition procedures for designs. Contestation is only possible via judicial routes, such as:

  • Actions for nullity before national courts.
  • Defensive exceptions in infringement litigation.

Grounds for contestation in France

Two primary categories of grounds apply:

  1. Relative grounds: Conflicts with prior rights (e.g., earlier designs, copyrights, trademarks).
  2. Absolute grounds: Lack of compliance with statutory criteria such as novelty or individual character.

A notable feature: French law includes no statute of limitations for nullity actions (PACTE Law, L 521-362 CPI), ensuring long-term contestability. This makes France particularly favorable for rights holders.

Case Study: A French fashion house successfully contested a competitor’s design by demonstrating lack of novelty, leveraging the flexibility of the French judicial system.

  1. Legal framework in the European Union

Administrative options at EUIPO

In the EU, Registered European Union Designs (REUDs) are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. Unlike France, the EU offers a dual-track system for contesting designs:

  1. Administrative invalidity proceedings: Handled by the EUIPO, offering a streamlined and cost-effective option.
  2. Judicial actions: Available before national courts, typically for Unregistered European Union Designs (UEUDs).

Grounds for contestation in the EU

The EUIPO allows invalidation requests based on:

  • Lack of novelty: The design must be entirely new.
  • Individual character: The design must produce a distinct overall impression on informed users.
  • Functional necessity: Designs dictated solely by technical function are excluded from protection.

Administrative invalidity proceedings at the EUIPO are subject to specific procedural timelines, ensuring swift resolution compared to French judicial processes.

Statistical Insight: EUIPO reports indicate that approximately 40% of invalidity requests are upheld, emphasizing the need for comprehensive pre-registration checks.

  1. Procedural differences

Filing mechanisms

  • France: Nullity actions must be filed directly before a national court.
  • EU: Administrative invalidity requests can be submitted to the EUIPO, bypassing courts initially.

Cost and time efficiency

  • France: Judicial proceedings can be time-consuming and costly due to the need for legal representation and court fees.
  • EU: Administrative procedures at the EUIPO are faster and less expensive, making them more accessible for businesses.

Appeal processes

  • France: Appeals follow the hierarchical court system, culminating in the French Supreme Court.
  • EU: EUIPO decisions can be appealed to the Board of Appeal, then to the General Court, and finally to the CJEU.

  1. The impact of the EU design package

The new EU design regulation significantly enhances the framework for protecting and enforcing designs by introducing alternative procedures, such as opposition and cancellation mechanisms. These changes promote harmonization between national and European systems, aligning national procedures with the EUIPO’s approach for trademarks. This ensures consistency and accessibility across the EU.

Key benefits of the EU design package:

  • Administrative invalidity mechanisms: Faster and less expensive alternatives to judicial proceedings.
  • Harmonized opposition procedures: Allow third parties to raise objections at an earlier stage, during the registration process.
  • Increased accessibility: By 2027, all Member States must adopt these procedures, ensuring uniformity across jurisdictions.

Example: A German technology firm utilized the EUIPO’s administrative invalidity procedure to challenge a competitor’s design, saving significant legal fees compared to a traditional court case.

  1. Practical tips for protecting and contesting designs

  1. Conduct comprehensive searches: Before filing a design, ensure its originality through thorough market and database research.
  2. Maintain detailed documentation: Keep records of creation processes to establish proof of novelty.
  3. Collaborate with legal experts: Engage with intellectual property specialists to navigate the complex legal requirements effectively.
  4. Leverage cross-jurisdictional strategies: Coordinate with international partners to challenge designs that infringe upon global rights.

Additional Tip: Utilize tools like the EUIPO’s DesignView database to assess potential conflicts prior to registration.

  1. Recent case studies and emerging trends

Case study: A major fashion brand vs. Fast fashion retailer

In 2022, a well-known luxury brand contested the design of a fast fashion retailer’s handbag. The court found that the retailer’s design lacked individual character, ruling in favor of the luxury brand. This case underscores the importance of robust design documentation.

Emerging trend: Blockchain for design authentication

Blockchain technology is increasingly being used to authenticate design originality and protect against counterfeiting. By creating immutable digital records, businesses can enhance the traceability and security of their designs.

  1. International perspectives on design contestation

Design contestation varies significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting differences in legal traditions, economic priorities, and enforcement mechanisms. For example:

  • United States: Designs are primarily protected under design patents, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) managing applications. Contestation often revolves around patent validity and infringement disputes in federal courts. The U.S. system places a higher emphasis on technical functionality compared to aesthetic originality.
  • China: As the world’s largest manufacturer, China has faced challenges with design piracy. However, recent reforms to its intellectual property laws have introduced stricter protections and improved enforcement mechanisms, including specialized IP courts.
  • Japan: The Japanese design system emphasizes harmony and functionality, and the country has streamlined its administrative opposition mechanisms. This ensures a faster resolution compared to judicial processes in Europe or the U.S.

These international variations underline the importance of tailoring strategies for contestation and registration to the target jurisdiction.

  1. The role of technology in protecting designs

The advent of new technologies has transformed how designs are created, registered, and contested:

  • Blockchain for design authentication: Blockchain provides immutable records of design creation, ensuring proof of originality. This technology is particularly effective in combatting counterfeiting and unauthorized duplication.
  • AI-assisted design analysis: Artificial intelligence tools can assess similarities between designs, helping to identify potential conflicts or infringements during the registration phase.
  • Digital marketplaces and IP enforcement: Platforms like Amazon and Alibaba have implemented IP protection programs, allowing rights holders to file complaints against counterfeit designs. These platforms also use machine learning to detect and remove infringing products automatically.

By leveraging these tools, businesses can enhance the security and enforcement of their design rights while streamlining dispute resolution processes.

  1. Ethical considerations in design protection and contestation

Ethics play a crucial role in the field of intellectual property. Key considerations include:

  • Fair use vs. infringement: Striking a balance between protecting designs and allowing creative inspiration is vital. Overly aggressive enforcement can stifle innovation, particularly in fields like fashion and technology where trends evolve rapidly.
  • Access to justice: Small businesses and independent designers often face barriers to contesting designs due to the high costs of litigation. Policymakers must ensure that administrative mechanisms remain accessible and equitable.
  • Cultural appropriation: Protecting designs inspired by indigenous or cultural heritage raises complex questions about ownership and exploitation. International treaties, such as the Nagoya Protocol, are beginning to address these issues, but gaps remain.

  1. Integrating sustainability into design protection

Sustainability is becoming a critical factor in design protection. As businesses adopt eco-friendly practices, there is a growing need to protect innovative designs that align with sustainability goals.

  • Eco-friendly packaging: Protecting designs for reusable or biodegradable packaging.
  • Green technology: Ensuring that designs for energy-efficient products are safeguarded.

Tip for Businesses: Highlight the sustainable aspects of your design during registration to align with emerging consumer and regulatory priorities.

  1. Collaboration between legal and creative teams

A successful design protection strategy often involves close collaboration between legal experts and creative professionals. This ensures that the design not only meets aesthetic goals but is also defensible from a legal perspective.

  • Workshops and training: Educating design teams on the basics of intellectual property.
  • Early involvement: Engaging legal teams during the design ideation phase to avoid potential conflicts.

  1. Cultural and geographic influences in design protection

Cultural heritage and geographic factors can play a significant role in design protection. The influence of local aesthetics often leads to unique designs, but it also requires careful navigation of regional laws.

  • Traditional craftsmanship: Protecting designs inspired by cultural heritage.
  • Global strategies: Adapting to the specific requirements of different jurisdictions.

Example: The protection of traditional motifs used in luxury goods to prevent unauthorized commercialization.

Safeguard your intellectual property with expert legal guidance. Contact Dreyfus Law Firm for personalized strategies to protect and contest your designs. Contact Us today to schedule a consultation!

Read More

The French SREN Law: Safeguarding the Digital Space and Enhancing Cybersecurity

Written by Dreyfus20/01/2025

The digital landscape has undergone significant transformations, necessitating robust regulatory frameworks to ensure user safety and fair competition. In response, France enacted the SREN Law on May 21, 2024, aiming to secure and regulate the digital space. This legislation introduces measures to protect citizens, particularly minors, combat online fraud, and enhance digital sovereignty.

Protection of Minors

A primary focus of the SREN Law is safeguarding minors from harmful online content. It mandates stringent age verification mechanisms for platforms hosting adult content, ensuring that minors are effectively restricted from access. The law also empowers regulatory bodies to enforce compliance, with non-adherent platforms facing potential sanctions.

Combating Online Fraud

To address the surge in digital scams, the SREN Law introduces a cybersecurity “anti-scam” filter designed to protect users from fraudulent communications, such as phishing emails and deceptive SMS messages. This proactive measure aims to bolster user confidence in digital interactions by mitigating the risks associated with online fraud.

Enhancing Digital Sovereignty

The legislation seeks to reduce dependency on major cloud service providers by promoting interoperability and fair competition within the digital market. By prohibiting restrictive practices that hinder software interoperability, the SREN Law encourages a more competitive environment, fostering innovation and providing businesses with greater flexibility in their digital operations.

Implications for businesses and digital platforms

The enactment of the SREN Law imposes new compliance requirements on digital platforms and businesses operating within France. Entities must implement robust age verification systems, enhance cybersecurity measures to detect and prevent fraud, and ensure their services adhere to interoperability standards. Non-compliance may result in significant penalties, including fines and operational restrictions.

Conclusion

The SREN Law represents a pivotal advancement in France’s approach to digital regulation, emphasizing user protection, particularly for vulnerable populations, and promoting a secure and competitive digital ecosystem. Businesses and digital platforms are advised to thoroughly assess the law’s provisions and undertake necessary measures to ensure compliance, thereby contributing to a safer and more equitable digital environment.

Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

Join us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

Tesla and the EUIPO Halt Trade Mark “Trolling”

Written by Dreyfus06/01/2025

In a recent decision, the EUIPO Cancellation Division declared the European trade mark “TESLA,” held since 2022 by Capella Eood, invalid on the grounds of bad faith. This ruling marks a significant victory for car manufacturer Tesla in its fight against abusive trade mark practices, often referred to as “trade mark trolling.” Here, we examine the key aspects of this landmark case.

Background and Stakes of the Case

In 2022, Tesla filed for the cancellation of the trade mark “TESLA” registered with the EUIPO by Capella Eood, a company linked to an individual notorious for “trade mark trolling” practices. The cancellation request was based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), which allows invalidation of a trade mark filed in bad faith.

Tesla argued that Capella Eood engaged in speculative strategies to register trade marks with the aim of blocking other businesses’ operations and extorting financial settlements. Evidence presented included examples of shell companies, delays in opposition proceedings, and strategic transfers of trade mark rights.

For its part, the trade mark holder denied the accusations of bad faith, calling Tesla’s claims defamatory and asserting that the mark was inspired by independent and unrelated sources.

Criteria Analyzed by the EUIPO to Establish Bad Faith

Under Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, bad faith is assessed based on the applicant’s intent at the time of filing, considering honest commercial practices. The EUIPO examined this intent using several key criteria, informed by cases such as Sky and Others (C-371/18) and Koton (C-104/18 P).

  1. Motives and Context of the Filing

The contested trade mark was filed shortly after Tesla achieved international recognition, particularly following the success of the Tesla Roadster. This timing indicated that the trade mark holder was aware of Tesla’s growing reputation. Claims that the mark was inspired by a newspaper article or a CD were deemed implausible, especially since the targeted products—vehicles and accessories—matched Tesla’s offerings.

  1. History of Speculative Practices

Evidence revealed that the trade mark holder had a history of systematic filings through shell companies across different jurisdictions. These trade marks were often abandoned or withdrawn, reflecting a deliberate strategy to exploit the EU trade mark system for financial gain by creating blocking positions.

  1. Dilatory Tactics and Lack of Genuine Use

The EUIPO identified procedural delays, such as inconsistent modifications to descriptions of goods and services, aimed at stalling opposition proceedings for nearly 15 years. The holder failed to provide any evidence of genuine commercial activity linked to the mark, reinforcing the perception of a purely obstructive strategy.

  1. Awareness of Tesla’s Operations

Tesla’s products were already widely covered by the media in Austria and beyond before the filing of the contested mark. This media coverage, combined with other evidence, demonstrated that the trade mark holder was aware of Tesla’s operations and sought to capitalize on its anticipated success in the European market.

  1. Violation of Fair Practices

The EUIPO concluded that the trade mark was filed without any genuine intent to use it and with the purpose of obstructing legitimate filings. This conduct was deemed contrary to principles of good faith and fair commercial practices.

Implications of the Decision

This decision aligns with a growing body of case law aimed at curbing trade mark trolling and safeguarding fair competition. It also reinforces principles established by the Sky and Others and Koton rulings, which define bad faith as intent contrary to honest practices at the time of filing.

For businesses, this case highlights the importance of monitoring trade mark filings that could impede their operations and acting swiftly to contest abusive registrations. It also underscores the critical role of evidence—such as filing histories and dilatory tactics—in proving bad faith.

Conclusion

The EUIPO’s decision in the TESLA case is a significant step in combating systemic abuse in the trade mark domain. It underscores that commercial practices must remain fair and honest, and that the trade mark system should not be exploited for speculative purposes. For companies like Tesla, such rulings help protect their investments and reputation in the European market. Trade mark law professionals, such as Dreyfus Law Firm, remain committed to assisting clients in addressing such challenges effectively.

Dreyfus Law firm partners with a global network of intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media

Instagram

LinkedIn 

Read More

2024 Retrospective: Intellectual Property and Innovation at Dreyfus

Written by Dreyfus31/12/2024

The year 2024 was marked by significant legislative developments, strategic innovations, and impactful initiatives for Dreyfus, a firm specializing in intellectual property. This retrospective highlights the key milestones, in-depth analyses, and tools developed to support businesses in a constantly evolving legal environment.

Key Articles and Legislative Developments

The firm analyzed several major developments in 2024, including:

  1. New European Measures for Sustainable Packaging: Adopted by the European Parliament, these measures aim to reduce packaging waste and promote eco-friendly alternatives. Practical recommendations were shared to help businesses comply with these new requirements.
  2. Modernization of the Designs and Models Regime: The “Designs and Models Package”, effective May 1, 2025, introduces significant adjustments to enhance the protection of creative works within the European Union. The firm’s articles explained these changes and their impact on creative businesses.
  3. Monitoring Brands on Social Media: A critical topic in the digital age. The firm explored advanced strategies to counter online intellectual property infringements and introduced new services for monitoring domain names and company branding.

Modernized Services and Tools

To address clients’ growing needs, the firm expanded its services in:

  1. Monitoring of Brands, Domain Names, Social Media, and Designs & Models: Enhanced vigilance to protect your intangible assets in an increasingly complex environment.
  2. Tailored Support: The firm developed customized solutions for startups and emerging businesses, offering tools suited to their limited resources.

Events and Internationalization

The firm actively participated in international conferences and organized webinars on various topics, consolidating its leadership role in intellectual property.

Looking Ahead to 2025

For 2025, the firm plans to continue exploring new technologies, introduce training tailored to clients’ specific needs, and strengthen its international collaborations.

We wish all our clients, partners, and collaborators an excellent year 2025, filled with success and serenity. May this new year be marked by positive achievements and lasting peace worldwide.

Dreyfus Law firm partners with a global network of intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media

Instagram

LinkedIn 

Read More

The Importance of Monitoring Brands on Social Media and Advanced Strategies to Counter Infringements

Written by Dreyfus17/12/2024

Online presence plays a crucial role in shaping a brand’s image, but this visibility also exposes it to significant risks such as counterfeiting, defamation, and rights violations. Social media, as both a catalyst for opportunities and a breeding ground for threats, demands increased vigilance. Companies must integrate monitoring as a fundamental element of their intangible asset management strategy. Dreyfus, an expert in intellectual property, positions itself as a key player in this field by providing tailored technical and legal solutions.

The Imperative of Proactive Monitoring on Social Media

Contrary to a commonly held assumption, content hosts (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc.) are not legally obligated to actively monitor what is posted. According to the European Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, these technical intermediaries can only be held liable once notified of the existence of illegal content. This legal gap forces companies to assume active monitoring themselves to protect their brand.

The risks faced by companies that neglect monitoring are diverse and severe:

  • Counterfeiting: The dissemination of counterfeit products via social media affects revenues and weakens brand image.
  • Defamation and Smear Campaigns: A viral negative publication can irreparably damage a company’s reputation.
  • Identity Theft: Fake accounts exploiting the name of a brand or its executives undermine stakeholder trust.
  • Intellectual Property Rights Violations: Unauthorized use of logos or trade names can erode the legal protection of these assets.

Takedown Mechanisms: Pillars of a Reactive Response

Platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, and Facebook have implemented “notice and takedown” procedures that allow illegal content to be reported and removed. These mechanisms directly address the proliferation of infringements within their ecosystems.

Typical Steps in a Takedown Procedure

  1. Identifying Infringing Content: This involves automated tools or manual analysis to pinpoint problematic posts.
  2. Notifying the Host: A formal request, including evidence of the violation, is submitted to the relevant platform.
  3. Review by the Host: Moderation teams assess the compliance of the request with internal policies and the legal framework.
  4. Content Removal: If the complaint is valid, the illegal content is swiftly deleted or blocked.
  5. Follow-up and Escalation: In cases of rejection or recurrence, legal actions may be considered.

A notable example is Amazon’s “Brand Registry” program, which provides brand owners with tools to monitor listings and report violations. Alibaba offers similar functionalities tailored to the Asian e-commerce context.

Why Rely on a Specialist Like Dreyfus?

Turning to experts maximizes the chances of success and minimizes delays in takedown procedures. Dreyfus offers:

  • Deep Legal Expertise: Each case is evaluated based on the applicable legal framework and relevant jurisprudence.
  • Advanced Technological Tools: Automated monitoring ensures rapid and accurate detection of infringements.
  • Comprehensive Support: From initial monitoring to potential legal proceedings, Dreyfus handles the entire process.

Social Media: Opportunities and Vulnerabilities

The open and participatory nature of social media, while a source of marketing opportunities, also serves as a gateway for various infringements.

  • Fraudulent Advertisements: These exploit a brand’s image to redirect users to counterfeit sites.
  • Shocking or Controversial Content: Associating a brand with controversial themes harms its public perception.
  • Orchestrated Smear Campaigns: Fabricated negative reviews, hostile hashtags, or defamatory posts erode reputation.

Three Strategic Axes for Enhanced Protection

Brands must adopt a multi-level approach: proactive, preventive, and reactive.

  1. Proactive: Maintain a Visible and Active Presence

Regular communication on social media helps monitor and control discussions about the brand.

  1. Preventive: Implement Structured Monitoring

Surveillance tools—such as automated crawlers or configurable alerts—detect potential infringements before they escalate.

  1. Reactive: Leverage Legal and Technical Remedies

Takedown procedures and legal actions remain essential steps to counter confirmed infringements.

A Changing Future: Challenges and Perspectives

The rapid evolution of technologies and online practices presents new challenges:

  • The Emergence of Deepfakes: These falsified contents complicate issues of defamation and counterfeiting.
  • Increased Regulation: The legal framework governing platforms could evolve, affecting host responsibilities.
  • Dual Use of Artificial Intelligence: While useful for monitoring, AI can also be exploited for malicious purposes.

Conclusion

Monitoring brands on social media is an indispensable strategic issue. Given the absence of proactive oversight by platforms, it is essential for companies to adopt comprehensive defense strategies. With the support of experts like Dreyfus, they can anticipate and counter threats while ensuring the sustainability and credibility of their brand in an ever-evolving digital environment.

Join us on social media!

LinkedIn 

Instagram

Read More

The International Trademark and the New Members of the Madrid Protocol

Written by sacha.tuillier@dreyfus.fr20/11/2024

The Madrid System, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), offers businesses a simplified way to protect their trademarks internationally. With the regular addition of new member countries, such as Qatar, in May 2024, the system continues to expand, providing companies with new business opportunities in strategic territories. But how do these new memberships affect the landscape of international trademarks?

The International Trademark and Its Benefits

The Madrid System is based on two international treaties: the Madrid Agreement of 1891 and the Madrid Protocol of 1989. These two instruments allow businesses to file a single international trademark application, designating the countries where they wish to protect their mark.

However, before a company can file such an application, it must first register its mark at the national level in the country where it is established. Following the registration of the international trademark, a dependency link is created with the national mark for a period of five years. Consequently, the loss of rights on the national mark automatically results in the same loss for the international mark in all designated countries.

Through the Madrid System, businesses can benefit from uniform protection of their mark in multiple countries while reducing costs and administrative steps. A single application also simplifies the management of trademark renewals, which are valid for a period of ten years and can be renewed indefinitely.

Qatar’s Accession and Its Implications for International Companies

Qatar became the 115th member of the Madrid Protocol on May 3, 2024, marking a new phase for the Gulf region. It is the fourth country out of six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members to join. This accession allows Qatari companies to register their trademarks internationally through a single procedure while facilitating access to foreign markets. Conversely, foreign businesses can now more easily protect their trademarks in Qatar by designating the country directly in their international trademark application.

For international businesses, the accession of new countries like Qatar to the Madrid Protocol opens up unprecedented commercial opportunities in markets that were previously less accessible. It enables the extension of trademark protection in strategic geographical areas, particularly given the rapid economic growth in the Middle East.

Challenges to Anticipate with New Members

Although the Madrid Protocol offers a centralized filing process, each member country retains its own national trademark laws. This means that even if a trademark is accepted at the international level, it may face challenges in some newly acceded countries. National offices may, for example, reject a trademark based on their specific criteria or extend the processing times, especially in cases of opposition.

Furthermore, companies must be prepared to face opposition in the designated countries. These oppositions may be based on pre-existing rights, leading to prolonged disputes or partial refusals of protection in certain countries. Opposition procedures may vary across jurisdictions, and the timelines can differ significantly.

Conclusion

The ongoing expansion of the Madrid System, with new accessions such as Qatar’s, strengthens the system’s global reach, facilitating access to new business markets. However, these advantages come with legal and administrative challenges, particularly linked to the national specificities of member countries. A proactive risk management approach, particularly regarding oppositions and variations in protection criteria, is essential for companies seeking to optimize their international trademark strategy.

Dreyfus Law Firm provides expert support at every international trademark registration and management stage. Our deep understanding of legal subtleties and our experience in global markets ensure optimal protection tailored to your specific needs.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in close collaboration with a global network of specialized intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media!

Instagram

LinkedIn

Read More

Case Study on Trademark Fraud Allegations in France: Hot Couture’s Pierre Cadault from Netflix Hit Series “Emily in Paris”

Written by Dreyfus18/11/2024

Breaking Down INPI’s Landmark Decision: A Tale of Two Industries

 The French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) recently addressed an intriguing trademark dispute that caught the entertainment industry’s attention. The case, involving a character name from the popular Netflix series “Emily in Paris,” has illuminated crucial aspects of bad faith trademark registration claims in the entertainment sector. The dispute centered on a trademark registration filed for cosmetics under Class 3, strategically positioned two months after the series premiere. The contested trademark is related to a fictional character portrayed as an extravagant couturier in the series, creating an unexpected intersection between beauty, fashion, and trademark law.

 

The INPI’s investigation delved deep into the chronology of events. Their analysis revealed “insufficient evidence” to establish the trademark holder’s awareness of prior use at the filing date. Despite the character “Pierre Cadault” prominently featured in the series as a renowned fashion designer, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the name “Cadault” alone had achieved meaningful recognition in France during the crucial initial months following the show’s release.

 

The art of proving bad faith: Beyond surface-level analysis

 A pivotal element in the INPI’s decision rested on the distinction between industries. While acknowledging the subtle connection between high fashion and cosmetics, the INPI determined that cosmetics operate in a separate commercial sphere from haute couture. This industry differentiation substantially weakened any presumed connection between the character’s name and the registered trademark category.

 

The INPI emphasized a fundamental principle: “mere awareness” of prior use does not constitute fraudulent intent. The burden of proving bad faith registration demands concrete evidence that the filing was specifically calculated to prevent a third party from utilizing a necessary business identifier. The timing of the registration, occurring two and a half months post-series launch, combined with the absence of communication between parties, significantly influenced the final determination.

 

The INPI’s reasoning revealed a subtle understanding of practical trademark enforcement. The notable absence of any legal action by the trademark holder to prevent the character’s name use in the series substantially undermined claims of malicious intent. This passive approach contrasted sharply with typical bad-faith scenarios, where trademark holders actively pursue cease-and-desist measures or legal proceedings.

 

A framework precision for evaluating bad faith

 The decision carried significant implications for the intersection of entertainment properties and trademark rights. The INPI acknowledged that while obtaining an injunction to prevent character name use would be legally challenging, potential conflicts could arise if Viacom pursued character-based cosmetic products. This nuanced observation highlights the complex relationship between entertainment content and commercial trademark rights.

 

This decision clarifies the framework for assessing bad faith in entertainment-related trademark registrations. The ruling emphasizes the critical importance of substantial evidence, industry context, and practical commercial implications. Future disputes will likely reference this decision’s “balanced approach” to evaluating trademark validity in the entertainment sector.

 

Conclusion

 The INPI’s thorough analysis offers valuable guidance for navigating the complex landscape of entertainment property rights and trademark protection. The decision underscores the necessity of considering both immediate and potential future commercial applications when evaluating trademark registration intent. This forward-looking perspective ensures that trademark protection serves its intended purpose without unduly restricting creative expression in the entertainment industry.

 

The ruling’s subtle approach to analyzing bad faith claims provides a robust framework that balances the legitimate interests of trademark applicants with those of entertainment property rights holders. As the entertainment industry continues to evolve, this decision will serve as a crucial reference point for resolving similar disputes, ensuring fair and practical outcomes in the dynamic intersection of entertainment and trademark law.

 

 At Dreyfus Law Firm, we recognize that the entertainment and media landscape present unique challenges for trademark protection, as evidenced by the recent “Emily in Paris” case. Our expertise lies in navigating these complex intersections between creative content and trademark rights. We guide entrepreneurs and companies through the intricate process of establishing and defending their trademark rights, particularly when industries overlap, as we saw with the fashion and cosmetics sectors in this case. “Bad faith claims” require sophisticated analysis and compelling evidence, but they are insufficient to demonstrate prior use or knowledge. Dreyfus Law Firm excels at building comprehensive strategies that consider both immediate concerns and future commercial implications. Our team prides itself on helping clients understand the practical aspects of trademark enforcement while ensuring their intellectual property assets are properly protected across multiple industries and jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm partners with an international network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property law.

Join us on social media!

Instagram

Linkedin

Read More

Securing Creations: The Blueprint to French Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution

Written by Dreyfus05/11/2024

French intellectual property (IP) law, deeply rooted in civil law tradition, is designed to ensure robust protection and enforcement of IP rights. The French legal framework for intellectual property disputes encompasses civil and criminal remedies, specialized courts, and a highly structured procedural system. This article delves into the intricacies of IP dispute resolution in France, focusing on trademark enforcement, litigation procedures, available remedies, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms while highlighting the essential balance between civil and criminal liabilities in IP infringement cases.

Trademark Enforcement in French Law

Trademark protection in France is governed by the Intellectual Property Code, which outlines the legal avenues available to trademark owners in cases of infringement. The law offers a dual approach whereby acts of infringement can be classified as both criminal and civil offenses. In most cases, trademark disputes are handled by civil courts. However, certain violations may lead to criminal prosecution.

 

For criminal liability, the stakes are high. Trademark infringement can result in substantial penalties, with fines reaching up to 400,000 euros and imprisonment for up to four years for individuals. Legal entities may face fines of up to 2 million euros. While these penalties underline the seriousness with which France views IP violations, the majority of trademark disputes remain within the civil court system, with ten designated courts spread across France, including key jurisdictions like Paris, Marseille, and Lyon.

 

Procedural Pathways in IP Disputes

A trademark infringement lawsuit in France typically begins with a writ of summons, a procedural document laying out the nature of the dispute, legal arguments, and remedies sought. The summons must also contain evidence of the claimant’s attempt to resolve the issue amicably before resorting to litigation. Once filed, both parties are required to be represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings.

 

The civil litigation process is notably distinct in France due to the absence of a discovery phase. Instead, a claimant can request a search and seizure procedure commonly referred to as “saisie-contrefaçon.” This powerful mechanism enables the claimant, with the assistance of a bailiff, to collect evidence of infringement, including seizing goods and related documents. To initiate this procedure, the claimant must first obtain court authorization, which is granted upon showing a reasonable suspicion of IP infringement. Once the “saisie-contrefaçon” is completed, the claimant has a strict timeline, typically 20 business days or 31 calendar days, to file the main proceedings, failing which the evidence seized may become inadmissible.

 

French courts also adhere to a stringent timeline for rendering decisions in first-instance proceedings, with judgments typically issued within 24 months. This relatively predictable timeframe particularly appeals to right holders seeking timely enforcement of their rights.

 

Burden of Proof and Remedies

As in most civil legal systems, the burden of proof in French IP law lies with the claimant. This responsibility extends to establishing both the occurrence of the infringing act and the likelihood of continued or imminent infringement. In some cases, particularly when seeking provisional relief, such as a preliminary injunction, the claimant must demonstrate that the trademark violation appears likely or is about to occur.

 

French courts offer both provisional and permanent remedies. Provisional remedies can be awarded during injunctive proceedings and may include an order prohibiting further infringement, the seizure of suspect goods, or a requirement for the infringer to provide financial guarantees. Permanent remedies are granted once the court rules on the merits of the case, which may involve the destruction or recall of infringing goods, as well as orders to cease all infringing activities. Additionally, monetary remedies are calculated based on the economic harm caused to the trademark owner, the profits made by the infringer, and any moral damages. However, French law does not provide for punitive damages, and courts retain discretion when determining the final award.

 

Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Growing Trend

While litigation remains the primary method for resolving IP disputes in France, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, such as mediation and conciliation, are slowly gaining traction. The French government and courts are actively encouraging the use of ADR as a cost-effective, confidential, and flexible means of resolving IP conflicts. One of the key advantages of ADR lies in its ability to preserve business relationships while offering swift resolution, as parties can enter into ADR before or after litigation has commenced.

 

That said, ADR, in the context of intellectual property disputes, carries certain limitations. For instance, rights holders seeking immediate relief, such as a preliminary injunction or seizure order, must rely on the courts, as ADR mechanisms do not provide such enforceable interim measures. Despite these limitations, the growth of ADR signals a shift toward more collaborative methods of resolving trademark and other IP disputes in France.

 

Conclusion

French intellectual property dispute resolution offers a comprehensive, well-structured system that balances civil and criminal liabilities, provides robust enforcement mechanisms, and promotes alternative means of conflict resolution. Trademark owners benefit from clearly defined procedural rules, access to specialized courts, and a range of both provisional and permanent remedies. As the role of ADR continues to grow, the flexibility of the French system ensures that right holders can tailor their enforcement strategies to the unique demands of each case. Through a combination of litigation, administrative enforcement, and ADR, France remains a key jurisdiction for the protection of intellectual property rights.

 

With our team’s mastery of French Intellectual Property Law Dispute Resolution, trademark enforcement, civil and criminal litigation, procedural efficiency, and the nuanced application of search and seizure procedures “saisie-contrefaçon”, Dreyfus Law Firm provides clients with a decisive edge in safeguarding their intellectual property rights. The firm’s intimate understanding of the French legal landscape and its strategic use of provisional and permanent remedies ensure swift and effective resolution of IP disputes. Companies seeking to protect their valuable assets can trust Dreyfus Law Firm to deliver robust defense strategies, minimize litigation costs, and, where appropriate, navigate alternative dispute resolution methods to achieve favorable outcomes. Their expertise in this complex area of law makes them the optimal choice for businesses aiming to secure their intellectual property in the competitive French market.

Dreyfus Law Firm partners with an international network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Join us on social media!

 

Instagram

LinkedIn

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

© 2024 Dreyfus – Created by Agence Peach