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.

Filing a trademark on behalf of a company in the process of creation: who may bring a trademark infringement action?

Written by Dreyfus22/02/2021

It is common for trademarks to be filed by individuals acting on behalf of a company in the process of creation.

The founder of the company is then the regular owner of the trademark until the company in question takes over the filing. Therefore, the founder may initiate proceedings, in the meantime, in case of trademark infringement.

But what happens if the company that was supposed to be created and, therefore, become the owner of the trademark, is never formed?

The French Supreme Court expressed its view in a decision dated October 14, 2020. Ms. T, who had registered the trademark “Dousè Péyi” in the name of the company in the process of being created Dousè Péyi, filed a lawsuit against the company Sérénade des saveurs (Cass. Comm. 14 Oct. 2020, No. 18-23-965 T.c/ Sté Sérénade des saveurs).

The dispute concerned the filing of the trademark “Doucè Péyi”, almost identical to the earlier trademark.

Following this application, Ms. T sued Sérénade des saveurs for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The applicant raised a motion to dismiss the action, based on the lack of interest of the founder of the company to act in defence of a trademark registered on behalf of a company which was not yet created (see Article 31 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

The company Sérénade des Saveurs claimed that Ms. T did not personally own the trademark. According to the defendant, since the company had never been created, Mrs. T should have recorded the change of ownership of the trademark at the INPI.

The first judges declared Ms. T’s action for infringement inadmissible for lack of interest in acting. The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision and stated that Ms. T “cannot claim ownership of this trademark in a personal capacity without having [recorded the change of ownership] on the National Trademark Register before initiating any action reserved to the owner of the trademark”. Otherwise, the change is unenforceable and any action in defence of the mark is therefore inadmissible.

Ms. T appealed to the Supreme Court and, rightly so, since the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that the Court of Appeal had violated Article L210-6, paragraph 2, of the French Commercial Code, which establishes a system of taking over acts performed on behalf of a company in the process of creation: “every person who acted on behalf of a company in the process of creation before it acquired legal personality shall be held jointly and indefinitely liable for the acts thus performed, unless the company, after having been duly formed and registered, takes over the commitments entered into. Such commitments are then deemed to have been entered into from the outset by the company”.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeal decision and affirmed that in the absence of legal personality, the founder of the company, who registered the trademark, is the owner of the trademark and therefore Ms. T could rightly file a trademark infringement suit.

This solution guarantees the legal security of project leaders. The creation of a company can, in fact, take time. During this time, several acts must be accomplished and the law acknowledges their retroactive effect.

Filing a trademark in the name of a company in the process of creation is an interesting practice to enhance the value of the trademark assets and protect them against third parties that may file a similar or identical trademark while the company is not yet formed.

However, case law in this area is not consistent and requires to be attentive to details when filing a trademark.

In order for the company to automatically become the owner of the trademark at the time of its registration, a statement of the acts performed on behalf of the company while it being created should be made, which will be annexed to the articles of association, and should mention the filing of the trademark, indicating that the company takes over the legal act of filing on its behalf.

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

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)

Domain names in <.suck> : between attack to brand image and freedom of expression

Written by Dreyfus26/01/2021

Sources: Domain Incite, Free speech, or bad faith? UDRP panels split on Everything.sucks domains, Oct. 22, 2020:

Free speech, or bad faith? UDRP panels split on Everything.sucks domains

Mirapex.sucks, Case n° 103141, 2020-06-29 : https ://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php ?dispute_id=103141
Bioderma.sucks, Case n° 103142, 2020-07-01 : https ://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php ?dispute_id=103142DNS News No. 270, Oct. 2020

The top-level domain name extension <.sucks> was open for registration by ICANN in 2015. At the time, some brands were already concerned about the risk of cybersquatting on these extensions, and the possible damage to the brand image that this could generate. In fact, many domain names that use trademarks known and ending in <.sucks> were born. Very often, these domain names refer to pages where Internet users can complain about the brand in question, whether they are consumers or former employees.

During the past months, the phenomenon has intensified with a lot of reservation numbers, clearly done by the same registrar of the domain name in <.sucks>. Suddenly, new online pages have emerged, with the same structure and bad comments about renowned brands. A system of resale at prices between $199 and $599 is also in place.
The question of the dispute resolution about the <.suck> is complex, since the situation raises issues relating to freedom of expression.

Two recent cases with two opposite outcomes illustrate this complexity. The domain names <mirapex.sucks> and <bioderma.sucks> were both registered by the same registrar and are both the subject of UDRP complaints. In response to these two complaints, the defendant based his argument on freedom of expression. For <mirapex.sucks>, the complaint was unsuccessful, on the contrary, for <bioderma.sucks>, the name transfer was ordered.

In the case of <bioderma.sucks>, the expert had taken into consideration the fact that the registrar didn’t use the domain name for bad comments on the trademark in question but was simply a third party who registered the domain name seeking to resell it. The reseller was a company located in the Turks and Caicos Islands whose activity is the purchase and resale of names in <.sucks>. The latter had no way of verifying if the bad comments were authentic. Especially because those comments seemed to have been added only after the complaint was filed.

On the other hand, in the decision on <mirapex.sucks>, reserved by the same company, the transfer was refused. The expert gave special attention to the nature of the <.sucks> and to the freedom of expression, while underlining the insufficiency of the argumentation of the applicant.
One thing is sure: prevention is better than cure, therefore it would preferable to register a brand in the extension <.sucks>, on a purely defensive basis.

The opportunity to add a registered domain name to the complaint after the filing

Written by Dreyfus22/01/2021

If Virgin Enterprises Limited (“Virgin”) was notably known by the French public as a megastore on the Champs Elysées, now permanently shut down; the company, on the contrary, is still very active in many different sectors such as travel, under the Virgin Voyages brand, or even in the mobile sector under the Virgin Mobile brand. As we all know, success is often followed by harm. Having detected the registration of domain names by a third party taking over its brands, namely <virgincruisevoyages.com>, <virginmediabiz.com>, <virginmobilewifi.com>, Virgin has filed an UDRP complaint against these names, July 23, 2020.

On the day the complaint was notified, July 27, the name <govirginvoyages.com> was registered and the applicant added it to his complaint. The expert reminds that a complaint can indeed cover several names, if they are registered by the same person or under the same name or under a common control.

In order to accept the request for consolidation, the expert takes in consideration the following elements:
* the names <govirginvoyages.com> and <virgincruisevoyages.com> that refer to identical sites and the same email contact;

* the registrant of the name <govirginvoyages.com> has the same first name as the registrant of of <virgincruisevoyages.com>, <virginmovilewifi.com> and <virginmediabiz.com>.

Thus, it seems possible to add a reserved name to a complaint after the filing.

Subsequently, the expert was able to conclude without difficulty that there was no legitimate interest of the defendant and bad faith. The defendant did not respond to the complaint.

All names resolved to sites copying those of Virgin and two of them, in particular, <virgincruisevoyages.com> and virginmobilewifi.com> were used in the context of fraud, aimed at “obtaining public information for commercial gain”. In addition, the registrar already used, in the past, other domain names related to Virgin’s brands. The expert said that “the use of some of the domain names involved in conducting an e-mail phishing scam is the type of illegal activity that is clearly considered to be the proof of bad faith”. This decision also highlights the need to be vigilant when mail servers – also known as “servers MX” – are set on a domain name. When such servers are set up, the reservee can send to anyb0ody e-mails from an address that includes the domain name, and endanger the company and its consumers; just checking if a website is in place on the names cybersquatted is not enough.

In this case, each single name was associated with a fake site and two of them had in addition a mail server that was carrying an e-mail fraud campaign. Thus, would be preferable to set up adequate surveillance on the company’s brands and to carefully analyze those, which are closest to the brand in order to take the right actions once the registration is detected.

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Oct. 23, 2020, aff. D2020-1921, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Aladin Chidi, NA / Aladin Tg.

The importance of taking care of the arguments within a complaint

Written by Dreyfus21/01/2021

Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant / Cobra Jet, Cobrajetaviation Cobrajet, Inc. located in the United States, has filed an UDRP complaint to obtain the transfer of the domain name <cobrajetaviation.com>, reserved by the Egyptian company Cobra Jet, Cobrajetaviation which would harm its Egyptian trademark Cobrajet.

In February 2020, the applicant allegedly asked one of its employees to proceed with the registration of the name <cobrajetaviation.com> on his behalf. The latter would thus have reserved the name using his personal credit card first, and being reimbursed by the applicant later. When the job contract ended, he would have refused to transfer to the applicant the information she needed in order to take control over the domain name and its related website. This is a very common dispute and, once again, it give us the chance to recall the importance of establishing naming charter within the company and the importance of assuring the respect of good practices: each domain name must be reserved by the company and with a generic e-mail address of type nomsdedomaine@entreprise.com.

Moreover, since this dispute involves a contractual dispute rather than a dispute over the on a classic case of cybersquatting, the expert rejects the complaint believing that it is for the courts to deal with this matter which “generates questions of contractual breaches, breaches of contract, breaches of fiduciary duties and potentially questions related to local labor laws”. The expert also said and pointed out that even if he could have known about the case on the merits, he would certainly have rejected the complaint, for two major reasons.

On the one hand, in order to prove its right on the trademark, the applicant has submitted the certified translation of a trademark application in Egypt, filed on January 26, 2020 and not yet registered. The expert also notes that a certified translation is not enough to determine who is the true owner of the trademark and that the copy of the original document was missing as wall.

On the other hand, the expert believes that the applicant’s arguments are insufficient to demonstrate the defendant’s bad faith. He did not gave proof of the instructions addressed to the employee; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether he or she has complied with them. However, the UDRP procedure involves proving both the registration and the use of the name in bad faith.

Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the complaint has a chance to succeed within the framework of the UDRP action, that it does not go beyond its scope and prepare the argument and the most important thing is to provide evident proof of its trademark right; presenting the request for a trademark that does not confer any protection. It should be also noted that the applicant gave an insufficient presentation of herself within the complaint, at the point that the expert indicates that they “presume” that the applicant is active in the aviation sector.

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Nov. 5, 2020, aff. No. D2020-2024 Cobrajet, Inc. v. The Endurance International Group, Inc,

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

Racism: when the news catches up with the brands

Written by Dreyfus20/08/2020

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.

The new trademark nullity procedure before the French Trademark Office (INPI)

Written by Dreyfus03/08/2020

On April 1, 2020, a new trademark invalidity procedure came into force with the French “PACTE” legislation. This law transposes the European Directive 2015/2436, commonly known as the “Trademark Package”, and establishes a new administrative action for nullity before the French National Institute of Industrial Property (“INPI“).

Previously, only the French court of first instance in civil, criminal and commercial matters (“le tribunal judiciaire”) was competent in trademark nullity actions. From now on, this competence is shared with the INPI.

This administrative procedure before the INPI makes it possible to obtain a decision within a shorter period of time (between 6 and 10 months) and at a lower cost.

Which trademark can be contested ?

An action for nullity may be filed against a registered French trademark or an international trademark designating France.

On what grounds can you file an action for nullity of trademark ?

A trademark may be declared invalid if it is vitiated by a defect which corresponds to a ground for invalidity. For instance, this is the case if it is:

– It is devoid of a distinctive character,

– It describes the designated products and/or services;

– It misleads the public,

-It is contrary to public order or morality.

If the trademark infringes a third party right, it forms a relative ground for invalidity.

Who can form an action for nullity or revocation of trademark?

In the past it was necessary to justify before the courts an interest in forming such action (is it a French procedural requirement in taking legal action) . This “interest to act” (“intérêt à agir”) could even be strictly assessed by judges.

With regard to the new procedure, when the action is based on an absolute ground for nullity, it is no longer necessary to prove an interest in bringing the proceedings.

The absolute ground for invalidity is one relating to the intrinsic value of the trademark. For example, if the trademark is descriptive of the goods it designates (such as “White chocolate” for … white chocolate), then any one may form an action for nullity without having to justify any harm.

When is the INPI competent?

The distribution of actions between the judge and the INPI is determined by articles L716-2 and L716-5 of the Intellectual Property Code.

Henceforth, the INPI has exclusive jurisdiction in certain claims, including for instance :

— nullity actions based on earlier trade marks (Community or French Trademark, International Trademark designating France or the EU, well-known trade mark)

– invalidity actions based on a domain name, only if its scope is not only local and there is a risk of confusion, or

– actions for invalidity of trademarks filed by the agent or representative of the trademark owner without his consent

This is the case for actions mainly concerning nullity based on one or more absolute grounds (such as misleading nature), but also for actions mainly concerning nullity based on relative grounds (such as infringement of prior rights of a trademark or a corporate name). However, French courts remain competent in regards to invalidity actions based on copyright or rights resulting from a protected design.

What about applications before the wrong authority (INPI instead of the judge and vice versa)?

When the plaintiff files an action before the wrong court, the action will simply be declared inadmissible.

How does the procedure at the INPI work? (Art. R. 716-1 from R.716-8 of the Intellectual Property Code)

The procedure begins with a one-month pre-instruction phase. During this admissibility examination, the INPI checks that the application contains all the required documents and information (statement of grounds on which each claim is based).

Afterwards will occur an investigation phase, which may last six months, and during which written exchanges will take place between the Parties : each Parties will set out their arguments and respect each other’s’ possibility of responding to accusations (the French procedural “principe du contradictoire”).

At the end of this investigation phase, the decision-making phase will take place, over a period of three months. It will be possible to limit the action in the course of the proceedings, by limiting it to either certain goods and services covered by the contested trademark, or to only some of the contested trademarks.

If the INPI confirms the trademark’s nullity the nullity shall be pronounced within three months, by decision of the General Director of the INPI and shall take effect on the date of filing. Nullity, therefore, has retroactive and absolute effect. The decision shall be entered in the National Trademarks Register and published in the Official Bulletin of Industrial Property (BOPI).

What remedies are available against the INPI’s decision?

The INPI’s decision, like every court decision, may be appealed against before the French Court of Appeal where the applicant is domiciled.

The Parties will have one month to appeal, by electronic means, upon notification of the INPI’s decision. The compulsory details of the appeal will be required, otherwise the appeal will be inadmissible. It is important to note that this action has a suspensive, but also devolutive effect, which means that judges will be obliged to retry the case in its entirety. During the procedure of appeal, the Parties have a three months deadline to submit their conclusions, including all their claims on the merits. If necessary, a claim can be brought against the decision of the Court of Appeal : it is called a “pourvoi en cassation” in French legislation. Either the Director of INPI or the Parties can form such a claim.

Ultimately, the new nullity action procedure before the INPI, relieves the courts (the “tribunal judiciaire”) by its simplicity and speed. Hence, decisions will be rendered relatively quickly and, above all, more actions will be brought thanks to the limited costs of an administrative procedure.

ABOUT THIS TOPIC…

– How to bring an action for invalidity or revocation of a trademark before the French Trademark Office INPI?

Trademark