Guerlain filed a successful appeal before theParis Court of Appeal. The court rendered its decision on September 22, 2020, ruling in its favour: the sign “Le Frenchy” is sufficiently distinctive and is not descriptive, for the concerned goods.
In the contested decision, the Director of the INPI had considered that English is predominant in everyday language and that many expressions including the term “French”, such as “French manicure” or “French tech”, are commonly used in commerce. He added that the addition of the vowel “y” to the adjective “French” does not change the nature of this slang Anglicism.
Guerlain states that the term “Le Frenchy” evokes a “little Frenchman” in slang and that this reference to the French spirit alone is not enough to deprive the sign of distinctiveness.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Guerlain’s arguments, holding that “Le Frenchy” evokes “a person representing a style, a French way of life, a spirit” and not directly the origin of the good.
The combination of the article “le” and of the term “Frenchy” is unusual and arbitrary in relation to the goods in question. Therefore, the sign does not lack of intrinsic distinctiveness within the meaning of Article L.711-1 of the Intellectual Property Code. Similarly, it is not descriptive, within the meaning of Article L.711-2 b), of the goods concerned, as this trademark does not designate a characteristic of the goods, but rather aims to qualify the person who might consume the goods.
It might be assumed that the trademark was saved because the sign “Le Frenchy” includes a form of slang which is not directly related to the goods in question.
The decision might have been different if the sign at stake mainly comprised the word “French”.
For example, theEuropean Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected the trademark ‘LIVE THE FRENCH WAY’ on December 9, 2019 for lack of distinctive character in relation to the services covered in classes35,39 and43, as it would be perceived as a “laudatory promotional slogan”.
In any event, in case of doubt as to the validity of a sign, it is advised to file the projected trademark in semi-figurative form, if it is intended to be used in a stylised manner. Graphic elements increase the distinctiveness of a sign.
Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.
(WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Natixis Intertitres v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Fredrik Lindgrent Case No. D2020-1383)
Being the owner of a trademark that is identical to the disputed domain name is a real advantage in the UDRP procedure. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prove that the respondent was aware of said trademark rights, which is quite complicated when the trademark at issue hasn’t been widely advertised.
Natixis Intertitres, the subsidiary of Natixis, a French internationally known corporate company, holds the registered trademark “INTERTITRES”. This subsidiary filed a complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name <intretitres.fr> registered by a third party without authorization.
During the procedure, the identity of the registrant was disclosed, revealing a Swedish owner.
The Complainant sustained that the domain name was registered in reference to its trademark without any relation to the generic definition of the term “intertitres” especially considering that, in the French language, as in the French dictionary, the term is generally used in the singular form.
Moreover, the complainant finds the configuration of mail servers on a domain name that doesn’t refer to any website “suspicious”. Natixis Intertitres sustained that the Respondent’s intention was to take undue advantage of the Complainant and its trademark’s reputation.
The Respondent didn’t submit a formal response to the complaint but stated that he had reserved the domain name in order to create a site related to literature.
The expert in charge of this dispute acknowledges the likelihood of confusion between the trademark and the subsequent domain name, as well as the lack of proof of legitimate interest by the Respondent, who didn’t really explain the choice of this domain name.
However, the expert is not convinced by the Complainant’s arguments as regards the bad faith criterion. In this respect, he highlights two important points.
Firstly, there is no evidence that the Swedish-based registrant was aware of the trademark “INTERTITRES”. Natixis is certainly internationally known as a company, but this is not the case for its “INTERTITRES” trademark, which designates lunch vouchers mainly available in France. These vouchers are rather known under the names of “CHEQUE DE TABLE” or “APETIZ”. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent was aware of this trademark.
Secondly, “INTERTITRES” is mainly a generic term. The fact that dictionary definitions are given in the singular form does not mean that the term does not exist in its plural form.
The complaint is therefore rejected.
In view of the above, it is essential for right holders to be aware of the scope of protection that their trademark can enjoy. Is the trademark sufficiently well known in the registrant’s country so that it is reasonable to assume that they had it in mind when they reserved the name? This question must be carefully considered, especially when the trademark has also an everyday language meaning and the disputed domain name is not used for an activity similar to the one for which the prior trademark is used. In this regard, the expert rightly pointed out that using a domain name primarily for having a letterbox is not prohibited (referring to the presence of e-mail servers on the disputed domain name).
Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world and in their enforcement. Do not hesitate to contact us.
Uncle Ben’s, Eskimo Pie, Quaker Oats… Apart from the fact that they belong to the food sector, these brands have one thing in common: for a long time they did not seem to be a problem but current events, the #BlackLivesMatter movement and the evolution of society have rightly highlighted the racist side of their name, logo or slogan. These companies have made the decision to change their image and the brands they operate.
In order to be registered with the French office (INPI), a trademark must meet a lawfulness condition : it must not be contrary to public order and morality. Therefore, an obscene design, a Nazi insignia or a racist slogan will obviously be declared inadmissible at the time of their examination by the INPI services following their filings.
Independent assessment of the specialty
In trademark law, it is the sign itself that is taken into consideration. Thus, the lawfulness of the goods or services it covers is not relevant for assessing the conformity of a sign with the public policy. When assessing the conformity with the public policy and morality of the sign, the nature of the goods to which the mark is affixed or of the service which it designates is not relevant.
On the other hand, a mark deemed racist remains racist regardless of the nature of the goods or services it designates. The packaging mark “Paki” could have escaped the qualification of “contrary to public policy” with respect to the goods it designates. Indeed, the name of the mark is probably not intended to claim a racist idea, since it is a derivative of the verb “To Pack” meaning “to pack”. However, since the term “Paki” is also used to pejoratively refer to Pakistanis, the registration of this trademark would have contravened the principle of respect for public order and morality because of the racist reference implied by the trademark.
Assessment in regard to the relevant public
A trademark’s conformity to the public policy, and by extension its racist character, is determined by its potential to shock the public with which it will be exposed to. By “public”, we obviously mean the targeted consumers but also other people who, without being concerned by the said goods and services, will be exposed to this sign in an incidental manner in their daily lives. In this respect, the “Paki” trademark refused in the United Kingdom, where the racist term is very common, would probably not have caused the same unease in a country where this racist insult is not used.
It might also explain why trademarks such as Uncle Ben’s or Quaker Oats have not been considered racist at the time of their registration and for years to come. Intended for a predominantly Western audience and distributed in countries where “ordinary racism” has long been normalized, the public they were aimed at was not “shocked” by their image.
This situation is similar to the one of the Banania brand with the slogan “Y’a bon Banania”, vocalized by a Senegalese skirmisher. The slogan, meaning “It’s good” (C’est bon) in broken French, perpetuated, according to anti-racism associations such as the Movement against racism and for friendship between people (MRAP – Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples), the racist and denigrating stereotype that a black person was not capable of speaking French correctly. Until the 1970s, the slogan was commonly used by the brand. On May 19, 2011, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled in favour of MRAP in a decision in which it required Nutrimaine, the company that owns the Banania trademark, to stop selling any product bearing that slogan.
Companies owning the Uncle Ben’s, Quaker’s Oats and Eskimo pie brands have announced that they will remove or change their visual identities that perpetuate racial stereotypes. When it comes to trademark law, the assessment of the racist character by trademark offices is becoming more meticulous.
WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, March 11, 2019, No. D2019-0035, Pharnext versus Wang Bo, Xiang Rong (Shanghai) Sheng Wu Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si
On numerous occasions, we have noticed that even those complainants who are represented in UDRP proceedings, could have been better informed about the nature and extent of the rights on which the respondent may rely. Detailed research is an essential prerequisite to filing a complaint, otherwise, the success of the complaint is jeopardised.
On January 7, 2019, the French company Pharnext, whose main activity is in the biopharmaceutical industry, filed a UDRP complaint seeking the transfer of the name <pharnex.com>, which had been registered by a Chinese company.
The complainant contended that it had trademark rights in PHARNEXT through ownership of its “PHARNEXT” logo protected by an international trademark since 2013 and used on its website located at www.pharnext.com.
The respondent had registered the domain name <pharnex.com> in October 2017. At the time the complaint was submitted, the disputed name connected to a website in both English and Chinese indicating that PHARNEX is a platform to help medical companies set up operations in China.
The complainant claimed that the respondent must have had the “PHARNEXT” trademark in mind when registering the domain name, because in May 2017, its partnership with Tasly, one of the most recognised pharmaceutical companies in China, had been announced. The complainant also said there is no plausible explanation for the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. It also claimed to have done searches which revealed no evidence that the respondent had any right or legitimate interest in the name.
However, the respondent, Xian Rong (Shanghai), firstly, proved that it had a licence on the “PHARNEXT” trademark for financial services, and secondly pointed to its active use of the trademark since December 2017. Although the ownership of a trademark does not automatically confer a legitimate interest or rights on the respondent, the complainant bears the burden of proof throughout the complaint.
In the present case, the expert was “convinced that the PHARNEXT trademark was registered in good faith”. She further noted that the domain name was used, before the filing of the complaint, in connection with a genuine offer of goods and services. Hence, though the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, the complaint could not be accepted.
The expert stressed that “her findings are made in the limited boundaries of the UDRP; any matters outside the scope of the Policy may be handled by the parties in a relevant court of law.. Quite simply, the complainant had not proved that the disputed domain name had been registered and used in bad faith.
This decision once again highlights that it is essential to carry out research on all aspects of the proposed complaint; including the respondent and the sign from which the disputed domain name has been derived. For example, researching the “PHARNEX” sign on the Chinese databases would have made the complainant aware of the existence of the word mark “PHARNEX” on which the respondent relied. This would have alerted the complainant to a potential weakness in its case and enabled it to consider alternative strategies. It is essential to think of every possible defense a respondent may raise and be prepared to counter any such defense.
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.
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.
Nathalie Dreyfus has been admitted as panelist and arbitrator in the CIRA Panel (Canadian Internet Registration Authority).
The CIRA Panel is a new Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre which belongs to theBritish Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre(BCICAC).
The main aim of CIRA is to settle disputes concerning domain names through a quick and relatively low cost mechanism, led by out-of-court arbitrators who meet certain requirements according to CIRA’s Canadian Presence.
The process is initiated by a complaint received in the CIRA Complaint Center which locks the disputed domain. A copy of the complaint is redirected to the Registrant who has twenty days to deliver a response. If so, a Panel of experts is appointed, whereas if there is no response the complainant may elect a single panelist. In both cases, a decision is given within twenty one days.
This decision is directly implemented by the CIRA.Since BCICAC was founded more than hundred cases have been solved by this institution.
Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.
After the filing of an intellectual property right, several types of changes are likely to occur, such as the owner’s move, the change of his name in a legal way or the assignment of his rights. Such corrections must be recorded in the relevant register, as this could have very damaging consequences for the holder.
Appropriateness of registration by the rights holder
By definition, registration is an approach made with the National Register of Trademarks, Designs and Patents by means of a paper or electronically, allowing the owner to notify changes in his intellectual property rights. This is important because it enables third parties to be informed of the ownership of trademarks, patents, designs and models as well as of the operations carried out on them.
Registries are national
In France, the National Registry of Trademarks only accepts registrations of trademarks whose effects are effective in France. Registrations concerning international trademarks are also impossible except in cases where they cannot be effected at the International Office (OMPI). This is particularly the case for the license, which must be registered directly with the National Registry in accordance with its own legislation. This is because the legislation of certain states such as Germany, Australia or New Zealand does not provide for the registration of trademark licenses, thus rendering their registration in the international register ineffective.
Changes affecting ownership or enjoyment of the trademark
According to Article L. 714-7 of the Intellectual Property Code, “any transmission or modification of the rights attached to a trademark must be registered in the National Register of Trademarks in order to be effective against third parties”. This article shows that if the assignee fails to register its assignment or trademark license, the assignee may not oppose these acts against third parties. On the one hand, this will prevent him/her from taking opposition action against a subsequent filing or in the context of a legal action and on the other hand, he/she may be held liable in the event of a mistake committed by the beneficiary of a trademark license, as stated in a judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice on 4 February 2016.
On the other hand, other more rare deeds such as mortgages, pledges or guarantees also deserve to be registered with the Registry, otherwise these deeds will not be enforceable against third parties.
Thus, licenses and assignments are not the only amendments requiring registration by the rights holder. The latter may indeed be affected by other operations although they are not expressly covered by Article L. 714-7 of the Intellectual Property Code.
These transactions include the following:
–Total or partial withdrawal of trademark rights: where the trademark has not been registered, it is possible to withdraw or specify some goods and/or services, or to withdraw the entire trademark. You may find yourself in this situation if the proprietor of an earlier trademark believes, for example, that this new application infringes his rights and requires the withdrawal of certain goods or services or, more significantly, the withdrawal of the trademark.
–The total or partial renunciation of the trademark: even if it is less common, these are cases in which modifications are requested after the registration of your trademark.
From a practical point of view, the right holder must also register in the Trademark Register:
–The change of address explained by the fact that if the INPI is not informed and the owner of the rights is not represented by an agent, he may never receive a reminder letter to renew his trademarks.
–The change of legal form (a SAS becomes an SA for example) because if the INPI is not informed of this change, it will refuse the renewal of the trademarks with the new data without justification.
–The change of name as illustrated by the harsh decision of the European Court of Justice of September 8th, 2016 confirming that the holder must register his change of name in order to avoid being deprived of his rights.
Limits of registration by the owner of the trademark right
The corrections that the holder may enter are limited, and are limited to the possibility of limiting the protection of his rights. Therefore, it is impossible to modify your sign, name or logo, nor is it possible to extend the protection of your right by adding products and/or services through registration.
Registration: the solution against the loss of rights
Failure to register the above-mentioned changes can have very damaging consequences such as forfeiture of rights. Moreover, the positions adopted by the courts continue to be increasingly rigorous, prompting companies to systematically register events affecting all intellectual property rights or their holders in order to avoid all types of damage.
Registering changes affecting your intellectual property rights is an essential step in terms of protection. Dreyfus & Associés has experts in trademark law, as well as in national, European and international trademark registrations. Dreyfus & Associés is the ideal partner to support you in this process of securing and updating your intellectual property rights.
Like every “wash-up period” preceeding the dissolution of the British Parliament and the election of a new one, this latest period witnessed the rushed adoption of a new intellectual property Act, which received Royal Assent on April 27, 2017.
As its name implies, the Act is specific to threats issued by intellectual property rights owners. It devotes a chapter for each right, namely patents, trademarks, and designs. It therefore harmonizes the status of the threats communicated by rghts holders, leaving copyright aside.
First, the Act defines a threat of legal action for infringement. Accordingly, communications contain such a threat if a reasonable person in the position of a recipient understands that an intellectual property right (patent, trademark or design) exists, and that the holder of these rights intends to bring legal action.
The Act focuses on the possibility for intellectual property rights holders to address their threat of legal action for infringement to the primary actors (i.e. manufacturers or importers) directly, without risk of liability for unjustified threats. The rights’ owners will also be able to require these actors to cease secondary acts such as product sale.
Furthermore, the Act describes the actor’s defence once he has been threatened, namely declaring that the threat is unjustified, seeking an injunction to cease the threat, or requesting damages for the harm suffered. This defense does not hold if the owner demonstrates his right along with the measures taken and communicated to the perpetratof of the infringement.
Finally, the Act introduces a new provision preventing the owner from addressing threats to professional advisers who act upon instructions and who identify their clients in the communication.
This new “Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act” is perceived as a positive step towards harmonizing the British legal system with regards to intellectual property. The owner must nevertheless remain vigilant before bringing a threat against a potential infringer so as not to suffer the consequences of qualification of an unjustified threat.
Dreyfus & associés is specialized in the field of intellectual property. The Dreyfus team closely follows new legal developments in Europe. We can help and advise you regarding all intellectual property rights within Europe.
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 French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) issued a decision on March 23, 2019, rejecting Guerlain’s application for the trademark “Le Frenchy”, covering cosmetic and perfumery goods. The refusal was based on the grounds that the sign was unsuitable to guarantee the commercial origin of the goods in question, as it could indicate a characteristic of said goods, in particular a French origin.
WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Centre, March 11, 2019, No. D2019-0035, Pharnext versus Wang Bo, Xiang Rong (Shanghai) Sheng Wu Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si
Protecting authors’ rights is a necessity in the digital age, as information flows more and more easily. That is why 
The 65th international meeting of the 
According to the 
Nathalie Dreyfus has been admitted as panelist and arbitrator in the CIRA Panel (Canadian Internet Registration Authority).
After the filing of an intellectual property right, several types of changes are likely to occur, such as the owner’s move, the change of his name in a legal way or the assignment of his rights. Such corrections must be recorded in the relevant register, as this could have very damaging consequences for the holder.