The Federal Bar Association, in collaboration with the French American Bar Association, is organizing the 2019 Fashion Law and Innovation Conference. This event will take place on Friday, October 4 at 8:30am at the Maison du Barreau in Paris.
Programming will feature a notable group of law experts and industry representatives who will discuss recent developments and current challenges from both the French and US perspective.
Nathalie Dreyfus will speak at 9am for a conference about The Five Senses: The growth of non-traditional brands in the fashion industry.
For more information and registration, please click here.
*Note that this conference is organized in collaboration with the French American Bar Association so it will be in English.
Information
Where: Maison du Barreau, 2 Rue de Harlay, 75001 Paris
On April 23rd 2019, the Russian Supreme Court adopted Resolution No. 10/2019, which clarified the provisions of Part 4 of the Russian Civil Code relating to intellectual property rights, and therefore to domain names, which are the subject of this article.
Among the clarifications provided, the Russian Supreme Court decided in particular that the commercial courts had jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to distinctive signs (with the exception of appellations of origin, however), whether the party concerned is an individual person, a private entrepreneur or a company. Previously, the commercial courts and the general courts had jurisdiction based on the identity of the holders of intellectual property rights.
Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to obtain information on the identity of Russian domain name registrants.
Indeed, although it is possible to make a request to registrars to disclose the identity of domain name registrants, obtaining this information has become increasingly complicated without legal action since many registrars refuse to disclose this information by taking refuge behind applicable legislation or requesting additional documents.
Resolution No. 10/2019 specifies that this information may be obtained through a court by filing a request for disclosure of personal data in legal proceedings. However, this is complicated when the identity of the domain name registrants is unknown. One solution would be to take legal action against registrars and then file a request for disclosure of personal data. It would be then possible to substitute the defendant.
In addition, with regard to infringement of a trademark by registration and use of a domain name, the Russian Supreme Court ruled that trademark infringement is characterized by the use of a domain name for goods and services similar to those designated by the trademark in question, and in some cases still, by registering the domain name only. Consideration should be given to the purpose behind registering the domain name to judge whether there is trademark infringement.
Finally, the Russian Supreme Court provides various additional clarifications. For example, a monetary claim may be filed against the current user of a domain name. In addition, it is possible to request provisional measures in respect of domain names. Finally, in cases concerning domain names, evidence consisting of printed screenshots of websites clearly showing i) the address of the websites in question, ii) the time at which the screenshots were taken and iii) whether they have been verified by the parties to the proceedings is admissible.
These clarifications are welcome. We will keep you informed of any further developments in this regard. Dreyfus is a specialist in domain name protection and defense strategy and can find solutions adapted to your needs. Do not hesitate to contact us.
The WHOIS protocol now appears to be outdated due to the evolution of technical requirements in the digital era. Indeed, this tool, provided by registrars, is inter alia not capable of working with either encoding or with non-latin characters. Consequently, since 2015, ICANN in collaboration with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IEFT) has been working on the replacement of WHOIS through the RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol), in compliance with the Temporary Specifications and the GDPR.
Like WHOIS, the RDAP provides registration data, although its implementation is different since it allows standardization, security data access and enquire response formats. As a result, it will be possible to search all the registration data available from various registrars, unlike WHOIS that is limited to the database being searched. It also takes into account the internationalisation of domain names.
The possibility of granting different accesses to the registration data is being considered. For instance, access for anonymous users could be limited whereas authenticated users could have full access to all data.
While some elements still have to be worked out, registrars are required to implement the RDAP service prior to August 26, 2019.
Companies which specialise in the audiovisual sector often require protection for their program titles through trademark law. If granted, this protection obviously offers considerable advantages for the company, but it is necessary to take into consideration some limits to it.
The advantages of trademark protection
First, the term of protection of a title by trademark law. Trademark law initially grants protection for 10 years, but this term is renewable indefinitely (Art L712-1 CPI). Thus, provided the owner submits a renewal application within the time limit, the trademark can be protected indefinitely. Copyright, on the other hand, can grant protection up to 70 years after the death of the author of the work, but the ‘guarantees’ of protection may be less obvious than trademark law because there is no register of copyright.
On the other hand, while copyright imposes a condition of originality (Art.L711-2 CPI), trademark law requires a distinctive character (Art L711-2 CPI). Thus, if the title of TV show or audiovisual program is distinctive and acts as an indicator of origin, it may be protected. In contrast, for copyright, it is necessary to prove originality, which is more difficult to prove. Since copyright is not subject to registration, the condition of originality must always be demonstrated in the course of a dispute. Thus, copyright protection is never certain.
A title may be protected by trademark law if it does not directly designate the goods and services for which registration is sought. Thus, if the title is arbitrary, there is nothing to prevent the title from benefiting from this protection. Finally, it should be borne in mind that trademark protection is not an impediment to copyright protection; it is thus possible to combine both protections.
The limits of trademark protection
Some limitations to the protection of audiovisual programs’ titles by trademark law should nevertheless be noted. The protection conferred by trademark law grants a monopoly on the use of the registered terms (Art L-713-1 CPI) and therefore the right to oppose use by third parties. However, in order to do so, it is necessary to prove :
The use of the sign by a third party “as a trademark”
First, it must be proven that the use of the title by a third party was “as a trademark”. To illustrate this concept, we can refer to the judgment rendered about the series “Le Bureau des Légendes”. In this case, the Paris Court of First Instance (TGI) dismissed the infringement action brought against a book, using the title, devoted to the study of the series. The purpose here was not to offer goods and services designated in the registration, but simply to refer to the series as such (TGI Paris, réf., April 16, 2018, n°18/53176). Use as a trademark would have been in the context of the sale of derivative products in connection with the series.
A commercial use of the sign
Secondly, in order to oppose the use of a sign, the owner must provide proof of commercial use. This means that it is not sufficient to prove merely a reference to the title. The use must take place in the course of business and not only for illustrative purposes. There must be a genuine commercial link between the sign and the use made by a third party.
A risk of confusion in the mind of the public
Finally, the risk of confusion in the public mind must be shown. The use of the sign must raise doubts as to the origin of the goods and services offered. A trademark is intended to guarantee in particular the origin of the goods and service. Thus, the use of the sign by a third party must infringe this guarantee of origin, severing the direct link between the sign and its owner.
For instance, the judges considered that there was no likelihood of confusion between Canal+’s trademark “LE ZAPPING” and the trademark “LE Z#PPING DE LA TELE”. In view of the evidence provided, and the overall impression, there was no likelihood of confusion. The phonetic and visual differences of the two signs were sufficient to eliminate this risk (CA Versailles, 12th ch., July 3, 2018, n°18/02091).
However, the principle of speciality of the trademark may be used against the owner of a trademark. Since a trademark is registered for specific categories of goods or services, the owner can only oppose the use of the sign for identical or similar goods or services. Thus, if a sign is used for a completely different area of activities, the owner will not be able to oppose this use of the sign. This was the case for Canal +, concerning its mark “LE ZAPPING”. The notoriety of this brand was certainly recognized by the Court, but only in the field of television broadcasts. Thus, it was not possible for Canal + to oppose the filing of a similar trademark for other categories of goods and services than those designated in registration of the trademark “LE ZAPPING”.
Conclusion
Trademark law grants additional protection to a title of an audiovisual program. It complements the protection that copyright can grant, in a more certain way through the requirement of registration. The point of filing a sign representing the title of an audiovisual work is therefore to acquire double protection, on both grounds. Admittedly, the conditions to be met in order to be able to bring an infringement action under trademark law may be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, trademark law offers more means of action, and therefore of compensation for damage in the event of unjustified use by third parties.
Dreyfus law firm, expert in trademark law, will assist you in the management of your trademark portfolio.
Cyber-attacks are on the rise, and they are becoming more sophisticated. Our current business model is globally interconnected; commercial transactions and even social life transcend national borders. Consequently, our vulnerability to cyber-attacks has been increased, however, the competences of the cyber security and police authorities, as well as political responses, are predominantly national.
This situation has made European authorities aware of the need to deal with these threats in an effective and coordinated way, relying their actions on policies dealing specifically with cybersecurity within the European Union. By means, the aim is thus to improve cooperation, exchange of information and coordination between the Member States and the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.
The European Commission, as part of the Digital Single Market Strategy, has approved Regulation No. (EU) 2019/881, on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on certification of information and communications technology cybersecurity, which came into force on June 27, 2019.
This new regulation has two main objectives. On the one hand, to give ENISA (the European Agency for Cybersecurity, now named the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) a greater role in the field of cybersecurity, establishing a series of objectives and tasks. On the other hand, the creation of a common certification framework at European level, with the aim of guaranteeing an adequate level of cybersecurity of ICT products, services and processes in the EU, avoiding the fragmentation of the internal market.
Concerning the first objective, the first substantive point of the Regulation is to give more powers to the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). It will now have a permanent mandate facilitating the exercise of the new functions assumed, one of which is to increase cooperation on cybersecurity within the Union, for example in cases of large-scale cyberattacks or cross-border crises. This strengthening is also reflected in the economic resources for ENISA, increasing from 11 to 23 million euros over a period of five years.
It is noteworthy that European regulation focuses on users by addressing concepts such as users’ awareness, and the application of good practices online. Both public bodies and private stakeholders will receive recommendations on safe configurations and maintenance of their devices, and the availability and duration of updates, as well as the perceived risks.
With regard to the second objective, the regulation creates a framework for European Cybersecurity Certificates for products, processes and services that will be valid throughout the EU. It is the first EU legislation on the internal market to take up the challenge of enhancing the security of connected products, Internet of Things devices and critical infrastructure through such certificates.
The creation of the cybersecurity certification framework incorporates security features in the early stages of their technical design and development (security by design). It also enables their users to ascertain the level of security assurance, and ensures that these security features are independently verified.
As to the second objective of the regulation, the certification framework will provide EU-wide certification schemes as a comprehensive set of rules, technical requirements, standards and procedures. This will be based on agreement at EU level for the evaluation of the security properties of a specific ICT-based product or service, for instance, smart cards. This will certify that ICT products and services which have been certified in accordance with such a scheme comply with specified requirements. In particular, each European scheme should specify: a) the categories of products and services covered, b) the cybersecurity requirements, for example by reference to standards or technical specifications, c) the type of evaluation such as self-assessment or third party evaluation, and d) the intended level of assurance for instance, basic, substantial and/or high.
ENISA’s mandate is immediate from the entry into force of the Regulation, whereas the cybersecurity certification framework will have to be developed. In this respect, the Commission’s agenda has already included the submission of proposals to ENISA for the preparation of certification projects, as well as the creation of expert groups on cybersecurity.
Finally, this European regulation not only seeks to increase users’ confidence in the use of connected devices, but also to strengthen the European cybersecurity industry and the European Single Market, positioning it as a global benchmark, in line with other markets such as the United States or China.
With significant expertise in protecting innovative products and designs, and in defending intellectual property rights on the Internet, Dreyfus is well positioned to assist you in enhancing your assets on the web.
In this respect, a great deal has been written by the Directive 2019/790 (EU), adopted on 26 March 2019 by the European Parliament. Among its 30 articles, we count in particular the establishment of a related right for press publishers (Article 15) and an obligation for platforms to control hosted content (Article 17). These provisions have been fiercely debated, and have led to multiple lobbying campaigns by authors and performers, newspaper publishers, and web giants (Google, Facebook and YouTube). In the present article, we will examine the changes made by the Directive.
New exceptions to copyright
There are currently many exceptions to copyright. In that respect, the Directive introduces three new exceptions to author rights and related rights in the digital environment. These exceptions and limitations are:
– Text and data mining for the purpose of scientific research when carried out by research organisations and cultural heritage institutions. However, rightholders are allowed to put in place technical measures aimed at ensuring the security and integrity of the networks and databases where their works are hosted. They may also expressly reserve their rights “in an appropriate manner”, for instance by machine-readable means, such as a digital watermark (Articles 3 and 4);
– The use of works in digital learning activitiesincluding distance learning. States may, however, provide a fair compensation for rightholders (Article 5);
– The copying by cultural institutions, for conservation purposes, of works which are part of their permanent collections (Article 6).
Under both French law and the Directive, these exceptions must be strictly interpreted and require that the work has been lawfullypublished.. All the conditions required by law must be met in order to benefit from these exceptions without having to obtain the author’s prior consent..
Furthermore, these new dispositions do not modify existing limitations and exceptions, such as parody or short quotation, which areretained (Article 17 (7) of the Directive). However, Member States will now have to specify that reproductions of visual works of art in the public domain cannot be protected by copyright unless the reproduction itself is original enough to be protected (Article 14). In France, this clarification is a mere application of copyright: a work in the public domain is no longer protected by author rights. Consequently, it can be freely reproduced without authorization. By contrast, if the production is original, it becomes a work on its own right and, as such, can be protected.
Licenses: out-of-commerce works, audiovisual video-on-demand works and collective management
The article 8 of the Directive authorizes collective management organisations to conclude non-exclusive licenses for non-commercial purposes with cultural heritage institutions for exploiting (reproducing, distributing, etc.) out-of-commerce work which are in their permanent collections.
According to Article 8 (5) of the Directive, a work is out-of-commerce: “(…) when it can be presumed in good faith that the whole work or other subject matter is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce, after a reasonable effort has been made to determine whether it is available to the public.”
Such licenses do not require prior mandate from the rightholder, but the collective management organization must be sufficiently representative of rightholders. The owner may, however, exclude at any time his works from this licensing mechanism, whether this exclusion is general or specific. In addition, the moral right to authorship of the work must be respected by indicating the author’s name, “unless this turns out to be impossible” (Article 8(2)).
Therefore, there is a switch from a prior authorization regime to an implied consent regime, and this will require greater vigilance on the part of authors and rightholders.
Article 12 of the Directive provides that States may authorize collective management organizations to extend collective licenses to rightholders who have not authorized the organization to represent them.
Here again, the organization must be sufficiently representative of rightholders, and they in turn may exclude their works at any time from this licensing mechanism.
Furthermore, article 13 of the Directive provides for a negotiation mechanism in which “an impartial body or of mediators” will be in charge, in order to assist in the conclusion of licensing agreements “making available audiovisual works on video-on-demand services”.
The related right of press publishers
Article 15 of the Directive creates a related right for newspaper publishers established in a Member State. They can now be remunerated for use of their content by information service providers, in particular news aggregators. This right is subject to strict conditions of application and does not apply to :
– Private and non-commercial uses;
– Hyperlinks;
– Use of isolated words or very short extracts of a press publication;
– Works published for the first time before the Directive’s entry into force.
Moreover, this right is onlygranted for two years from January 1st of the year following the date on which that press publication is published.
This related right is a right of its own, and thus publishers no longer have to demonstrate they indeed own the economic rights transferred to them by the author of the work.
Part of the remuneration paid by service providers to newspaper publishers must be paid to the authors. However, the Directive does not specify how this payment must be carried out. In addition, authors can exploit their works independently of press publication.
Online content-sharing service are fully responsible (Article 17)
liable if they “promptly” remove the content at stake.
Platforms will now be liable if they communicate to the public without authorization works protected by copyright. However, they will be exemptfrom liability if they have:
– “Made best efforts to obtain an authorization” from rightholders;
– “Made best efforts” to ensure the unavailability of the work and
– Acted “expeditiously” to disable access to the work or remove it from their websites after receiving a « sufficiently substantiated notice” of the rightholders.
Compliance with these requirements will be examined with regard to the type, audience, and size of the service, as well as the type of works downloaded. Article 17 (8) specifies that platforms are not subject to any general monitoring obligation, but its paragraph 4 (b) requires that they provide their “best efforts”, “in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence”, to ensure the unavailability of protected works, which seems to be a sneaky way to require automatic content filtering.
Platforms that have been in service for less than three years, and which have an annual turnover of less than €10 million, will benefit from a less restrictive liability regime, as they will only have to make their best efforts to obtain an authorization and will have to act promptly upon receipt of a “sufficiently substantiated notice” from a right holder.
Furthermore, all platforms will be required to put in place an “effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism” so that users can challenge blocking or removal of a work posted online. States must also provide for alternative dispute resolution procedures.
Finally, it should be noted that authors and performers will now have to be remunerated in an “appropriate and proportionate” manner (Article 18). They must receive, at least once a year, information on the exploitation of their works (transparency obligation provided for in article 19). Contracts which are already concluded should be adapted to provide for an “additional, appropriate and fair remuneration” (article 20). Article 22 of the Directive also gives authors a right to revoke a license or a transfer of rights. These measures already exist in French law, but the Directive will harmonize European law.
On March 29, 2019, the registry in charge of <.eu> domain names (EURid) announced the extension of its contract with the European Commission until October 12, 2022 under the Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of March 19, 2019 (“the 2019 Regulation”).
With one exception, the provisions of the 2019 Regulation will apply starting October 13, 2022, and repeal the Regulations (CE) 733/2002 and (CE) 874/2004. The exception is that the provision concerning eligibility criteria under Article 20 of the 2019 Regulation will apply from October 19, 2019. This provision allows any person holding European Union citizenship, regardless of country of residence, to register a <.eu> domain name.
The purpose of this new regulation is to adapt the rules governing the <.eu> ccTLD to the expansion of the domain names sector. In this regard, the EURid’s annual report shows a steady increase in registrations in six countries including Portugal, Ireland and Norway. Nevertheless, the uncertainty caused by Brexit led to a loss of 130,000 domain names for the 2018 period. This decrease is mainly due to the anticipation of registrants who face the impossibility of registering or renewing their <.eu> domain names in the near future.
The <.CN> Policy is ONLY applicable to <.CN> and <.中国> domain names that have been registered for less than three years.
This Policy applies to <.CN> and <.中国>domain names that are identical or confusingly similar, not only to a mark, but to any “name” in which the complainant has civil rights or interests (.CN Policy, article 8(a)), whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights.
It is sufficient for the complainant to prove that either registration or use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both elements.
The appeal jurisdiction belongs to the Courts of China or the arbitration Chinese institution, and the proceedings language will be Chinese (unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the Panel).
This adds to the over 75 other ccTLDs for which trademark owners can rely on WIPO’s dispute resolution services.
The 65th international meeting of the ICANN took place in Marrakech, from the 24th to the 27th of June 2019. Several topics have been discussed such as the new gTLDs issues, the compliance between ICANN procedures and the GDPR provisions and the review of the rights protection mechanisms.
Future new gTLDs issues
Recently, ICANN faced an increase in the number of applications for top-level domains (gTLDs). In 2012, almost 2000 applications for new gTLDs were submitted to ICANN. At the end of this first round, more than 1000 gTLDs were created, for instance the <.brands>. ICANN awaits similar applications for the next round, which should take place in 2022.
Thus, new strategies have to be implemented to handle with those requests. At first ICANN foresees establishing priorities, based on the new gTLDs applications, to make the process more efficient. This process could be opened every year for a period of 4 months. However, ICANN could seek to limit the number of applications to 1000 per year.
Furthermore, TLDs with 2 characters will be permitted under the new process if these are composed by one letter and one number. Nevertheless, singular and plural versions of the same extensions are likely to be banned as coexisting gTLDs in the future.
The ICANN Board had authorized the use of this gTLDs whereas several GAC members had expressed their concerns about the risk of the Amazon case becoming a precedent and expressed concern that a mutually acceptable solution had not been achieved. The GAC has requested ICANN Board to formulate its grounds for its approval. In addition, several South American governments object to its use.
GDPR and EPDP
The Expedited Policy Development Process Working Group (EPDP) implemented a compliance policy in regard to the GDPR, on March 2019. In our article about ICANN 63, we explained that when the GDPR came into force, it would produce several effects on the Whois protocol. For instance, personal data will no longer be accessible to the public. The EPDP has now to develop a unified access system centralizing protected data, based on the legitimate interests of IP owners.
Furthermore, some details about the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) were given in the ICANN 65. This protocol has been created to eventually replace the Whois protocol. In fact, it performs the same functions as Whois, but its aim is to standardize data access. It shall be implemented by Registries and Registrars by the 26th of August 2019.
Review of protection mechanisms provided by ICANN
TheRights Protection Mechanism (RPM) Working group is reviewing several ICANN procedures concerning gTLDs. It has developed preliminary recommendations about Sunrise and Claims periods. In the same way, some proposals have been developed to allow trademark owners to acquire a priority right to register their trademark as a domain name. In the absence of such a registration, third parties could register terms corresponding to the trademark.
Up to now, the first phase of the working group scheme consists in reviewing Uniform Rapid Suspension(URS) and the Trademark Clearinghouse(TMCH) mechanisms. Similarly, the UDRP procedure remains on the horizon, and the Group is expected to begin work on that in mid-2020. This will be the second phase of its work.
Meantime, as their work is not yet completed, we will have more information once their report is completed, which is expected to be in April 2020.
On the other hand, another working groupwas also formed to study Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) for new gTLDs. This working group confirmed its support of a User Guide, under the assumption that it becomes more precise, to make it easier to understand what gTLDs are.
Similarly, the SubPro working group expects to better communicate with trademark owners in order to limit the risk of counterfeiting, and to show how those new gTLDs could have a good effect on their activity.
Thus, ICANN 65 provided an opportunity to evaluate the work done thus far by the working groups. However, if clarifications have been made, few concrete changes have been put in place. The projects should take shape at the next meetings organized by ICANN.
The next ICANN meeting will take place in November 2019, in Montreal. We will continue to follow this matter closely.
According to the judgment « Adidas AG / EUIPO », T-307/17, of the 19th of June 2019, the General Court (ninth chamber) of the European Union dismissed an appeal by Adidas against the decision of the EUIPO to declare the famous « three-stripes » figurative trademark invalid on the grounds it lacked distinctive character.
This began when Adidas opposed the registration of the 2 stripes trademark of its competitor, Shoe Branding, who counterclaimed to have the Adidas “three-stripes” registration declared invalid on the grounds it lacked distinctive character. By a decision of 30th June 2016, the cancellation division of the EUIPO declared the Adidas registration invalid, and by decision dated 7th March 2017, the second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO upheld the original decision to cancel the Adidas trademark.
Therefore, Adidas appealed that decision to the General Court arguing that the challenged trademark had acquired distinctiveness through use. However, the Court ruled that there was a lack of inherit distinctiveness and also refused to recognise the acquisition of distinctiveness through use. In doing so, the Court said that Adidas did not provide sufficient evidence of distinctive character. According to the Court, Adidas had proved only that the necessary distinctiveness had been proved in only 5 of the EU member states.
It is important to remember that the distinctiveness is not established by providing evidence of sales and marketing figures for the products and services, but is judged by reference to the relevant public’s perception of the trademark. The Court said that distinctive character must be assessed, first, by reference to the goods or services in respect of which registration has been applied for and, second, by reference to the perception which the relevant public has of those goods or services. This meant that the Court considered the relevant public consists of all potential consumers of those goods in the European Union, and on the evidence filed said they would not make an obvious link between the « three-stripes » and the owner (Adidas). Although the « three-stripes » became the symbol of Adidas a long time ago the evidence filed by Adidas did not demonstrate an obvious link between the sign as registered and the products for which it is registered. There was no direct evidence the “three-stripes” as registered were actually used on the products covered in the registration. Therefore, the trademark’s distinctive character, and so its validity, could not be upheld.
The Court already accepted that a repetition of signs for a figurative trademark could be a valid trademark (TUE, 9th of november 2016, Birkenstock Sales/EUIPO, T-579-14 Representation of a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines). Nevertheless, in this case, the Court thought the trademark is composed of obvious non-distinctive elements.
Arguably, according to the Council Regulation n°207/2009, the European Court is going against the past judgments, but the decision is a necessary reminder of the need to prove distinctiveness acquired through use, in each country of the Union.
In the circumstances of this case, an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union is to be expected because of the effect of this decision on Adidas, which has registered several figurative trademarks of this kind. It may also have an effect on many other trademark owners. This judgement relates only to the specific trademark registration challenged and does not directly affect the other trademarks of Adidas, nor of any other owners.
Our site uses cookies to offer you the best service and to produce statistics, and measure the website's audience. You can change your preferences at any time by clicking on the "Customise my choices" section.
When browsing the Website, Internet users leave digital traces. This information is collected by a connection indicator called "cookie".
Dreyfus uses cookies for statistical analysis purposes to offer you the best experience on its Website.
In compliance with the applicable regulations and with your prior consent, Dreyfus may collect information relating to your terminal or the networks from which you access the Website.
The cookies associated with our Website are intended to store only information relating to your navigation on the Website. This information can be directly read or modified during your subsequent visits and searches on the Website.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Dreyfus is concerned about protecting your privacy and the Personal Data ("Data"; "Personal Data") it collects and processes for you.
Hence, Dreyfus complies every day with the European Union legislation regarding Data protection and particularly the European General Data Protection Regulation Number 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 (GDPR).
This Privacy Policy is aimed at informing you clearly and comprehensively about how Dreyfus, as Data Controller, collects and uses your Personal Data. In addition, the purpose of this Policy is to inform you about the means at your disposal to control this use and exercise your rights related to the said processing, collection and use of your Personal Data.
This Privacy Policy describes how Dreyfus collects and processes your Personal Data. The collection happens when you visit our Website, when you exchange with Dreyfus by e-mail or post, when exercising our Intellectual Property Attorney and representative roles, when we interact with our clients and fellow practitioners, or on any other occasion when you provide your Personal Data to Dreyfus, in particular when you register for our professional events.
The Federal Bar Association, in collaboration with the French American Bar Association, is organizing the 2019 Fashion Law and Innovation Conference. This event will take place on Friday, October 4 at 8:30am at the Maison du Barreau in Paris.
On April 23rd 2019, the 
The WHOIS protocol now appears to be outdated due to the evolution of technical requirements in the digital era. Indeed, this tool, provided by registrars, is inter alia not capable of working with either encoding or with non-latin characters. Consequently, since 2015, ICANN in collaboration with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IEFT) has been working on the replacement of WHOIS through the RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol), in compliance with the Temporary Specifications and the GDPR.
Companies which specialise in the audiovisual sector often require protection for their program titles through trademark law. If granted, this protection obviously offers considerable advantages for the company, but it is necessary to take into consideration some limits to it.
Cyber-attacks are on the rise, and they are becoming more sophisticated. Our current business model is globally interconnected; commercial transactions and even social life transcend national borders. Consequently, our vulnerability to cyber-attacks has been increased, however, the competences of the cyber security and police authorities, as well as political responses, are predominantly national.
Protecting authors’ rights is a necessity in the digital age, as information flows more and more easily. That is why 
On March 29, 2019, the registry in charge of <.eu> domain names (EURid) announced the extension of its contract with the European Commission until October 12, 2022 under the Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of March 19, 2019 (“the 2019 Regulation”).
The China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), registry of the <.CN> and <.中国> ccTLDs, has designated 
The 65th international meeting of the 
According to the