How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with Intellectual Property law?

Written by Dreyfus28/05/2021

Visual Merchandising (VM) represents all store layout techniques. It is the art of implementing the identity dimension through scenarization of points of sale.

The term Visual Merchandising is born in the United States in the 1950s with the rise of art in business. Andy Warhol made the first storefronts in New York. After the years of the Depression, it was necessary to boost the economy with eye-catching storefronts.

The industry is branded, every brand is unique and represents your business in the market.

It is the art of implementing the identity dimension of a store through a scenarization of spaces. It is a true creation of the company which displays its own identity in its store.

Visual merchandising makes it possible to reconcile commercial efficiency, aesthetics and enhancement of the image of the brand in order to attract customers and retain them. There are different channels to seek legal protection of your investments in visual merchandising.

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with copyright law?

Interior design is likely to be protected by copyright, provided that the criteria of form and originality are met! In the “Ladurée” case, the Paris Court of Appeal acknowledged the originality of the layout: “The elements and spaces created bore the imprint of the author’s personality and in the choice of style, colors and decoration the personality of the author was reflected”.

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with trademark law?

To be protected, a trademark must be distinctive, lawful and available. Thus, the company Apple Inc was able to obtain the registration of its sales spaces as a three-dimensional trademark.

How to protect store layout -Visual Merchandising with unfair competition and free-riding ?

The main act of unfair competition potentially occurring in visual merchandising is confusion / imitation: causing, in the mind of the customer, an assimilation or a similarity between two companies or between their products and services.

In the Zadig Voltaire v. Bérénice case, the company Zadig France based its claim to protect the fittings of its stores on unfair competition.

Parasitism refers to “the set of behaviors by which an economic agent interferes in the wake of another in order to profit, without investing anything, whether its efforts or its know-how”.

What precautions should you take to protect your IP rights?

To protect your IP rights, it is paramount to take several precautions:

* Ensure that confidentiality clauses are included in your contracts;

* Provide for nondisclosure agreements;

* Be vigilant on the terms of transfer of rights between the creator and the company.

For example, the Court of appeal of Paris considered in the Petit Bateau case that the publication by an employee of photographs revealing the new collection of a clothing brand, even on a private Facebook account, constitutes a serious fault justifying the dismissal.

The Court ruled that the employee at the origin of the publication had committed the serious fault of having communicated to third parties confidential information, while its employment contract expressly provided for an obligation of non-disclosure.

In order to protect your Visual merchandising, it is necessary to establish a protection strategy in the real world and in the digital world.

Why bet on the trademark?

This way you obtain a monopoly, which can be renewable indefinitely and which will constitute the pillar in your marketing and sales strategy.

It is important to register the trademark from the genesis of the project. To that end, it will be necessary to determine a limited but suitable territory. Likewise, it is important to think globally and digitally, and to envision the protection of domain names when registering your trademark.

The domain name is an important asset!

Today, intellectual property of which domain names are a part is identified by insurers as one of the top three risks facing businesses.

Domain names in particular serve as vectors for ever more sophisticated and varied frauds. Managing your brand on the internet is not just about filing and renewing, but also building a strategy.

It is important not only to invest in a protection and preventive defense strategy but also to set up appropriate watch services for your brand.

Finally, you must be particularly vigilant about the use that is made of your brand on the Internet by avoiding “bad buzz” that is harmful to your reputation.

As a creation, Visual merchandising is a real intellectual and economic investment that is essential to protect.

Dreyfus & associés

In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.

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

Written by Dreyfus18/05/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Dreyfus29/04/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2021

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

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

The current reputation of the trademark is not sufficient to prove bad faith registration of an old domain name

Written by Dreyfus23/03/2021

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Nov. 24, 2020, case DRO2020-0007, NAOS c/ Bioderm Medical Center

The Bioderma brand has a world-wide reputation but was this reputation already established in Romania at the beginning of the years 2000? The Bioderm Medical Center, a clinic based in Romania, answers no to this question.

NAOS, owner of the Bioderma trademark, has detected the registration by the Centre Médical Bioderm of a domain name reproducing its trademark, namely <bioderma.ro>. However, said domain name is quite old as it has been registered on February 24, 2005.

On September 4, 2020, NAOS filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to obtain the transfer of this domain name. This complaint is based on an International trademark Bioderma, protected in Romania since 1997.

Nonetheless, the defendant claims to have used the sign Bioderma as its business name for several years, hence the registration of the domain name <bioderma.ro> and the subsequent change of its coporate name.
The expert in charge of the case is particularly thorough in its assessing whether the defendant has the legitimate interest and rights in the disputed domain name or not.
He considers that even if the latter produced a Kbis extract showing that its commercial name, in 2003, was indeed Bioderma, it is insufficient to prove a legitimate interest or rights on the domain name. The defendant should have brought evidence that it was commonly known by the Bioderma name.

The expert also notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive web page and therefore concludes that there was nobona fide use of the name in connection with an offer of goods and services and no legitimate non-commercial use of the name.
It is however on the ground of bad faith that the expert finally decides in favour of Bioderm Medical Center.
The latter notes that the International registration of the applicant’s Bioderma trademark is several years older than the disputed domain name and that this trademark is currently renowned. However, the evidence brought by the applicant are deemed insufficient to demonstrate the possible or actual knowledge of this trademark by the defendant in 2005, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

Indeed, although the earlier mark was established in the 70’s in France and was first registered in Romania in 1997, the first subsidiary of the applicant, established in Italy, only opened in 2001: the true starting point of the brand’s internationalization.
Yet, the defendant founded the company in 2003 and carried on its business under the name Bioderma until 2008.

From there, it is not possible to establish that it had targeted the company or its trademark to mislead or confuse Internet users. Moreover, the defendant did not conceal its identity and responded to the complaint, which shows good faith.

This decision is a reminder that it is essential to place oneself at the time of domain name registration in order to assess the aim of the registrant. Even if the prior trademark enjoys a world-wide reputation on the day of the complaint, the dive into the past is inevitable: it must be determined whether the defendant, located in a certain country, had knowledge of the rights or reputation of the trademark. In this case, the expert took into account, among other things, that the defendant used the commercial name “Bioderma” in 2005. Therefore, it is essential to investigate on the registrant and their situation at the time of registration of the domain name, here particularly old. To that end, seeking legal advice from an IP lawyer specialized in UDRP procedures is strongly recommended.

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

Unfair competition: a doomed market place

Written by Dreyfus24/02/2021

On November 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Paris, condemned Webedia, a company specialised in the management of Internet sites, for unfair competition towards the Bonpoint company.

Bonpoint is specialized in the manufacture and sale of high-end children’s clothing, marketing its discontinued products through online retailers of multi-brand clothing, including Yoox.com.

The Webedia company, for its part, run the marketplace shopoon.fr which is a guide for buying fashion and decoration items online putting Internet users in touch with e-commerce merchant sites. In particular, it offers products appearing on the site yoox.com.

So far so good. However, the Bonpoint company has found that 93% of the products of its brand displayed on the site shopoon.fr are unavailable for sale, and when the user clicks on these unavailable products, he is redirected to similar and competing products belonging to other brands.

The Court of Appeal of Paris considered that the presentation of products on the site shopoon.fr allowed the consumer to clearly distinguish available items from unavailable items. Consequently, this presentation was not likely to substantially alter the economic behavior of the normally informed and reasonably attentive consumer who, in case of unavailability of the desired branded product, would turn to articles of another brand.

Therefore, the Court ruled that Webedia had not committed deceptive marketing practices.

However, the Court reminds that if the Webedia company does not sell directly the articles which it presents on its site, it is nevertheless remunerated as soon as it puts forward the products of different sites and brands, in the event of unavailability of the initially sought-after product. It thus draws a financial advantage from the redirection of web users to these products.

Consequently, the judges held on this point that the Webedia company was guilty of unfair competition, by presenting on the site shopoon.fr 93% of articles of the Bonpoint company which it knew unavailable, and by “referring the web user to the possibility of seeing similar competing products“. They considered that the Webedia company had thus used the attraction force of the Bonpoint brand to generate traffic of web users oriented towards other products.

The Court thus ordered Webedia to pay Bonpoint the sum of 22,043 euros in damages, including 20,000 euros in compensation for moral prejudice and 2,043 euros for misappropriation of customers.

The creation of a data access system Whois by ICANN

Written by Dreyfus27/01/2021

Since the advent of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it has become really difficult to obtain information about the registrant of a domain name. This obviously complicates the dialogue between trademark and domain name holders.

ICANN has proposed a project to create a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD), which would allow standardized access to non-public data on domain name registrations.
The objective of the SSAD is to provide a predictable, transparent, efficient and accountable framework for access to non-public registration data. It must also be consistent with the GDPR.
However, the decision whether or not to grant requests would still belong to the registrars, as legal constraints on personal data may vary from country to country.

This project accelerated in August during Stage 2 of the policy development process, during which a final report was presented that provides 22 recommendations for the system.
The creation of this SSAD could, in the coming years, facilitate the fight against cybersquatting, which has been strongly impacted by the GDPR and WhoIs anonymization processes. It should be remembered that the next round of requests for domain name extensions should take place in 2023, bringing a whole new set of challenges in the fight against Internet attacks.

Source: LexisNexis, N°1 (January 2021)

Webinar – Intellectual property questions for a successful digital transition

Written by Dreyfus01/10/2020

Webinar September 10, 2020 :

Intellectual property questions for a successful digital transition

How to secure and optimize your website? What precautions to take? How to defend your intellectual property rights on the Internet?

When you want to succeed in your digital transition, you have to ask yourself certain questions.

Whether you are thinking of selling online or strengthening your e-commerce, intellectual property is a key element.

Webinar replay

United States: what are the options to protect a trademark?

Written by Dreyfus31/08/2020

When a company wants to export its activity to the American market, it is essential that it think about protecting its brand. Indeed, the protection of a trademark being territorial, the registration of a trademark in France will have no value in another country. There are several ways to protect your trademark in the United States.

National registration

The registration of a trademark in the United States is done at the national trademark office: the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office).

Types of registration

There are two types of registrations: the registration on the “Principal register” and the registration on the “Supplemental register“.

Registration in the principal register

A trademark registered in the principal register provides maximum protection because its owner is presumed to be the sole owner, which gives him the possibility to sue any person using an identical or a similar trademark.

Furthermore, registration in the principal register provides the owner with the advantage of benefiting, in the event of a dispute, from a presumption of validity of his trademark.

To register a trademark with the USPTO on the principal register, several conditions must be met, the most important being the criterion of distinctiveness.

Registration in the supplemental register

Registration on the supplemental register is available when a trademark is not considered sufficiently distinctive. Such a registration does not provide as much protection as a registration the principal register.

Modes of registration

There are also two modes of registration: filing based on Intent-to-Use and filing based on Prior Use

Intent-to-Use Application

This registration is made when the trademark has not yet been used on the US market. However, at the time the trademark is filed, the owner must start using the trademark in the United States within six months.

The protection of the trademark extends over a period of 10 years, renewable indefinitely.

Use in Commerce Application

This system makes it possible to register a trademark whose use is already effective. However, the applicant must provide proof of use of the trademark at the date of filing. This proof can nevertheless be difficult to provide.

The USPTO allows proof of use of a trademark when :

– the mark is inscribed on the goods or the packaging of the articles, or is related to the goods and services;

– and the goods and services to which the mark is affixed are sold in at least two states in the United States.

Protecting your trademark in the United States: is the Madrid System the best option?

The Madrid System allows a national trademark to apply for protection in a maximum of 122 member countries of the Madrid Union by paying a single set of fees, based on a single application. It is a single procedure that results in a bundle of national trademarks. This registration system is managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The use of this international trademark system has several advantages for the owner of a trademark: it is necessary to prepare only one file, to be submitted to a single office, in a single language and to pay a global fee. It is a simplified and centralized procedure, which generally leads to a reduction in costs. It also makes it possible at any time to extend the scope of protection to other member countries of the Madrid Union that were not initially designated in the application. It is particularly interesting when one wishes to extend the protection of a trademark in different countries.

The United States became party to the Madrid Protocol on November 2, 2003. It is therefore part of the Madrid Union.

When a company exports internationally and wishes to protect its trademark in different countries, it can choose, often rightly since it has many advantages, to use the Madrid System. However, this is not necessarily the best option to protect a trademark in the United States.

However, it should be remembered that the Madrid System does not bypass local laws, objections may be raised by national offices as well as third parties within each country concerned and no application is guaranteed to succeed.

International applications cannot be entered in the Supplementary Register.

In addition, for a period of five years, the international trademark is obligatorily attached to a national trademark, for example a French trademark. If the latter is cancelled, all designations in the different countries of the Madrid Union are cancelled with it.

Several options are therefore available to a trademark owner who would like to protect its trademark the United States. Depending on the level of its international exploitation and the characteristics of the trademark, the possibilities, costs and conditions of each system will have to be studied and the one that is most suited to the project will be selected.

Liability of online platforms operators : where do we stand?

Written by Dreyfus31/08/2020

Operators of online hosting platforms will soon know exactly what responsibility to assume for illegal or hateful content published on these platforms. The current climate seems to be very conducive to clarifying the nature and extent of their liability.

In this respect, two schools of thought clash: for some, it is necessary to impose obligations to control the content published on these platforms, but for others, this would reflect the attribution of a new role to these operators, which has not been given to them on a basic level.

“There would be a risk that platform operators would become judges of online legality and a risk of ‘over-withdrawing’ content stored by them at the request of users of their platforms, to the extent that they also remove legal content,” said Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, who presented his conclusions before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on July 20, referring to request for preliminary ruling a preliminary ruling made by the Bundesgerichtshof, the German Federal Court of Justice, on two disputes brought before the German national courts.

The first dispute (1) was between Frank Peterson, a music producer, and the video-sharing platform YouTube and its parent company Google over the users posting , of several phonograms without Mr. Peterson’s permission, to which he claims to hold rights.

In the second (2), Elsevier Inc, an editorial group, sued Cyando AG, in connection with its operation of the Uploaded hosting and file-sharing platform, over the uploading, again by users without its authorization, of various works to which Elsevier holds exclusive rights.

In said requests for preliminary ruling, it is a question of knowing whether the operator of content platforms such as YouTube, performs acts of communication to the public pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, a directive that was invoked against YouTube.

The answer is negative, according to the Advocate General, who invites the CJEU to bear in mind that the legislator of the Union has specified that the “mere provision of facilities intended to enable or carry out a communication does not in itself constitute a communication within the meaning of [this directive]”. According to the Advocate General, it is, therefore, important to distinguish a person performing the act of “communication to the public”, within the meaning of the Article 3(1) of the Directive 2001/29, from service providers, such as YouTube and Cyando, who, by providing the “facilities” enabling this transmission to take place, act as intermediaries between that person and the public. On the other hand, a service provider goes beyond the role of intermediary when it actively intervenes in the communication to the public – if it selects the content transmitted, or presents it to the public in a different way from that envisaged by the author.

Such a conclusion would lead to the non-application of the Article 3(1) of the Directive 2001/29 to those people facilitating the performance, of unlawful acts of “communication to the public”, by third parties.

Moreover, it is a question of knowing whether the safe harbour – in the case of “provision of an information society service consisting in storing information provided by a recipient of the service” – provided for in the Article 14 of the the Directive on electronic commerce n°2000/31 is in principle accessible to these platforms (according to the Advocate General, it is).

This provision provides that the provider of such a service cannot be held liable for the information that it stores at the request of its users, unless the provider, after becoming aware or conscious of the illicit nature of this information, has not immediately removed or blocked it.

However, according to the Attorney General, by limiting itself to a processing of this information that is neutral with respect to its content without acquiring intellectual control over this content, the provider such as YouTube, cannot be aware of the information it stores at the request of the users of its service.

The CJEU will, therefore, have to rule on these issues in the coming months.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in 2019, the Union legislator adopted the Directive No. 2019/790, not applicable to the facts, on copyright and related rights in the single digital market, modifying in particular the previous Directive of 2001. A new liability regime was introduced in Article 17 for operators of online hosting platforms.

Sources :

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/cp200096fr.pdf

C-682/18 Frank Peterson v Google LLC, YouTube LLC, YouTube Inc., Google Germany GmbH

C-683/18 Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG

law