Dreyfus, Author at dreyfus

Why is claiming unregistered trademark rights over a geographical name a difficult challenge in UDRP proceedings?

Written by Dreyfus22/04/2021

While certain geographical names may, by exception, benefit from protection within the meaning of the UDRP rules, it should be remembered that they must be perceived as a trademark or service mark over which the applicant has rights. However, the mere use of a geographical name to identify certain goods and services as a territorial entity is not sufficient to demonstrate rights in a trademark or service mark within the meaning of the Guidelines, as the pannelist rightly pointed out in the present Decision.

In this case, the geographical name Solothurn (‘Soleure’ in French), corresponding to a city in Switzerland, was reproduced in its entirety in the domain name <solothurn.com>. It was registered in 1997 and has not been used since except to redirect to a “pay-per-click” page.

The applicants, the City of Solothurn and two associations under Swiss law promoting mainly tourism and unsurprisingly showing a strong interest in the domain name <solothurn.com>, claimed an unregistered trademark right on the sign “Solothurn”, which has been used extensively over the years. They also claimed protection of the name as “trademark-like” within the meaning of the Swiss law on unfair competition.

In this regard, they provided several documents attesting to the use of this geographical name by tourists since 1890 and its recognition as such. The applicants inferred that the use of the sign “Solothurn” constituted a trademark used to identify tourism and other related services. They also cited several decisions of the centre concerning geographical names, which are far from having argued in their favour.

The defendant, domiciled in the United States and known for his activities related to domains specializing in “geographical” domain names, had put the domain name <solothurn.com> up for sale. The defendant cited numerous decisions on how geographical names should be assessed (including a decision about the name <rouen.com>) and on the need to fulfill the function of a trade-mark.

Faced with this case and the question of whether the applicants could validly claim an unregistered trademark right in the name “Solothurn”, the panellists carried out a meticulous examination of the case law of the decisions of the WIPO panellists (overview) in the field of geographical names.

In particular, they recalled that according to the overview, “geographical terms used only in their ordinary geographical sense, except when registered as trademarks, do not, as such, provide standing to act in UDRP proceedings“. They also noted that in UDRP matters, it has generally been difficult for affiliates or entities responsible for a geographical territory to demonstrate trademark rights over that geographical name. However, the panellists noted that the decisions cited by the applicants all acknowledged that the geographical name was used in a purely descriptive way of a geographical location and not as a trademark.

On the other hand, they took note of the fact that some panellists have indicated that an unregistered trademark right in a geographical name may be granted to an official authority in exceptional circumstances. The circumstances in question cover the increasingly rare assumption that the geographical name would be used in connection with products and services but without any connection to the geographical location to which it corresponds. The idea is that the trade name should not generate an association with a geographical location in the minds of consumers, but rather an association with products and services, as the main function of the brand requires. For example, we can mention the products of the Ushuaïa brand, unrelated to Tierra del Fuego.

In the present case, the panellists noted that the applicants had not provided any proof of use of the name “Solothurn” in connection with products and services beyond those provided by the City of Switzerland. On the contrary, the applicants merely pointed out the use of the name “Solothurn” in connection with the name of the city of Switzerland and the tourist activities offered there. Consequently, the panellists could not validly conclude that the applicants had established that they had rights in the unregistered Solothurn trademark.

The panelist added that the applicants could not rely on the protection of this name as “trademark-like” within the meaning of the Swiss law on unfair competition insofar as Article 4.a. (i) of the Guidelines expressly refers to the “trade or service mark“.

Finally, the complaint was rejected as the applicants had not provided proof of trademark rights. However, this decision seems to be qualified by the panellists, who point out that it is a decision rendered under the UDRP principles, adapted to disputes between registrants and trademark owners whereas the solution could have been different under Swiss law and in matters of unfair competition.

The “morality” of this decision is not new; the UDRP procedure is not suitable for all disputes involving domain names and should not be systematically preferred to legal proceedings, even if it does have the advantage of being faster and less costly.

Written by Dreyfus20/04/2021

One of the key elements of the franchise is the authorisation given by the franchisor to the franchise to exploit its trademark. In such contracts, it is key to define precisely the terms of use.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC (“Century 21”) is a renowned real estate company, founded in 1971 and managing 8000 franchised agencies in 80 countries. In particular, it owns the trademark C21, protected in Montenegro.

Century 21 filed a complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to obtain the transfer of the domain name <c21fresh.me> registered on November 14, 2012 by Lika Ivanoc, which belongs to the Fresh d.o.o. company in Montenegro, also specialized in real estate.

Century 21 asserts that in the past the Respondent has been a member of its network of franchisees but that this is no longer the case. Realogy Group LLC, another parent company of Century 21, was reported to have entered into an agreement with a Serbian company, Real Estate d.o.o.

According to this agreement, which the Complainant does not provide, Real Estate d.o.o was authorized to use the trademarks of Century 21 and to enter into sub-franchises.

This agreement would have expired in 2014.

The Complainant explains that in 2015, the parent company of the Respondent, Century 21 Fresh Real Estate, was notified of the end of the contract of franchise. The letter stated that Century 21 did not know if Century 21 Fresh Real Estate was commercially connected to Real Estate d.o.o.

In the absence of any response, Century 21 filed a complaint to the Montenegrin Trade Inspection, and after that, Century 21 Fresh Real Estate has been ordered to withdraw the trademark from the photographs published on the web site www.realitica.com.

The above situation is quite complex.

To begin with, the Respondent did not reply to the complaint, which would have eventually clarified the situation and the possible links, even the indirect ones, between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The expert acknowledges the similarity between the domain name <c21fresh.me> and the C21 trademark. However, he does not issue commentaries on the legitimate interest of the registrant and directly moves on to rule on the question of registration in bad faith.

He notes that if the Complainant clearly indicates that the Respondent was part of its franchisees network, it also had a letter sent to the Respondent’s parent company, suggesting that it was not sure that the Respondent was actually part of this network.

It might be surprising how little control Century 21 has over its network of franchisees and sub-franchisees. However, the name of the Respondent’s parent company appeared on the site of one of the franchises of the Complainant, which suggests that the Respondent was indeed a member of the franchise network.

The expert notices that during the course of this agreement Real Estate d.o.o. and the sub-franchisees had the authorization to use the trademarks of Century 21. Thus, the domain name has certainly been registered within this framework. Unless a clear clause in the contract prohibits to register domain names, it is difficult to consider that the domain name has been registered in bad faith in 2012.

The experts relies on a previous case, Elders Limited v. Private Company, No. D2007-1099, in which the expert concluded that the name registered by the franchisee was part of its activity even without the franchisor’s express authorisation. In the absence of evidence of other motivations that might have pushed the Respondent to register the domain name, the registration was considered to be in good faith.

The question then arises as to whether the renewal of the domain name <c21fresh.me> after the end of the contract of franchise can define a new starting point for the criterion of registration in bad faith. Referring to the WIPO Overview 3.0, the expert indicates that the simple renewal of the domain name cannot qualify a bad faith registration. Consequently, the complaint is rejected.

This decision shows that it is always preferable, for a company, to be the owner of the domain names used by its partners, such as franchisees, even if the latter are the ones exploiting them. At the very least, drafting a contractual provision is essential, specifying the way in which the trademarks of the franchise can be operated and if such use includes the registration of domain names, under which conditions, which charter to respect and when these names must be returned. The same problem can arise for social media accounts.

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

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Nov. 9, 2020, Case D2020-0008, Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Luka Ivanoc, Fresh Realestate

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.

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2021

The DNS NEWS report No. 271 highlights the overall criticism of ICANN solution for not intervening as much as its powers allow in Internet security issues, even though the DNS breaches do not decrease the number of hits. A sort of criticism derives from this observation: should ICANN become a kind of Internet welfare state or should it remain in the background, which would be recommended by the defenders of Internet neutrality.

It should be noted that in 2018, ICANN solution had already undertaken measures to make the Internet a little more secure, by changing the cryptographic key used to protect the Internet’s address book, the DNS (Domain Name System). However, further efforts are expected.
Domain Name System. – V. ICANN, 16 sept. 2018, Approved Board Resolutions [ R]egular Meeting of the ICANN Board).

Source: Dns-news.fr, date, rapp. n° 271,

To discover…

♦ ICANN Summit: the fight against DNS abuse, a GAC priority

Written by Dreyfus14/04/2021

Google With more than 91% of market share, Google is the most used search engine in France. Knowing that it is rare to consult results other than those of the first page, optimizing its ranking is a key issue. Natural results can therefore be negatively impacted: a well optimized site can be better referenced than a more relevant site.

However, Google has not said its last word on the subject yet and has announced the change of its algorithm, in May 2021, in order to favour the catch of the Essential Web Signals and more specifically, the time it takes for a site to load, its interactivity and the stability of the content while it loads. Google already gives advice on this subject on its Google Search Central platform.
One of the objectives of this approach is to counter cases where domain names that were previously exploited and well placed on the podium of search engine results have fallen back into the public domain and have been retrieved by domainers to resolve to parking pages. These names that no longer present attractive content for Internet users should not be the first to appear in the list of results.

Sources:
Emarketerz.fr, 20 mai 2020, Parts de marchés & classement des moteurs de recherche les plus utilisés en 2020, S. Fakir
Google Search Central, SEO pour les utilisateurs expérimentés, Comprendre la convivialité des pages dans les résultats de recherche Google
Domain Name Wire, 10 nov. 2020, « Page experience » to impact Google search rankings starting in May, A. Allemann

Written by Dreyfus13/04/2021

With the rise of the digital age, setting up a reliable and effective compliance strategy as well as mobilizing the skills of professionals have become key factors in the company’s performance, particularly in the field of intellectual property.

From the outset, it seems important to remember that compliance includes all the processes intended to ensure that a company, its managers and its employees comply with the legal and ethical standards applicable to them.

FromLAW No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life. on anti-corruption measures to the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (GDPR) of April 27, 2016, and including the duty of vigilance of parent companies and ordering companies (law of March 27, 2017) or the prevention of cyber risk (implementing decree of May 25, 2018 of the NIS directive), an undeniable operational impact on companies and their managers can be observed.

Likewise, the challenges and risks of intellectual property have increased in the virtual world. Domain names as well as social networks are likely to be the targets of multiple attacks.

The key challenges of compliance with regards to intellectual property risks (I) raise questions both about the practical consequences of compliance in all aspects of intellectual property the role of the “compliance officer” in this framework (II) and the role of the “compliance officer” in this framework (III).

The challenges of intellectual property compliance

The environment as well as legal decisions revolve around the long-term development of the company and justify the establishment of real legal engineering within companies whose intellectual property is decisive. This is the key challenge of compliance, which is both a framework for thinking and a method of solving problems, involving a large number of tools and components oriented by company strategy.

Legal, regulatory and fiscal constraints are increasingly stringent and make companies bear increased responsibility in case of negligence, or even simple inaction. In particular, the regulatory framework sets out increased requirements regarding the protection of consumers and personal data.

In the field of intellectual property, domain names are key assets to contemplate when analyzing the risks and drafting compliance plans. While they are a major asset, essential to the very functioning of the business (for example, for e-mail servers, they are also risk vectors: phishing, fraud, identity theft, forged e-mail …

Online fraud can lead to loss of turnover, endangerment of consumers, and if so, risks of civil or criminal liabilities of directors for non-compliance with enforceable laws and regulations. impact the stock market price, thus causing loss of customers.

It is therefore very important to put in place the appropriate strategies to anticipate dangers, react effectively in the event of a breach and ultimately protect the company.

The practical consequences of compliance in all aspects of intellectual and digital property

Compliance has an immediate impact on all aspects of intellectual property. Also, while the legislation is more and more restrictive for companies and intellectual property professionals, compliance requirements are reinforced. How to bring your company into compliance with the laws? What are the risks of not including the Internet in your compliance plan?

Beyond its legal meaning of compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, Codes or even directives, compliance aims to protect the company and intellectual property professionals against any non-compliance with internal and external standards and its values. Intellectual property frauds are growing and becoming increasingly complex in the digital era, which requires taking action to mitigate risks for the company business, including in terms of compliance. Its objective is to avoid adverse consequences for the company and its managers, both financial and civil or criminal liability, or damage to image and reputation. It is ultimately part of a desire for lasting growth in all aspects of intellectual property, both in France and internationally.

To cope with these new standards, companies must put in place a governance policy capable of minimizing their exposure to risk vis-à-vis their customers, their shareholders, but also regulatory authorities.

To begin with, it is essential to identify the risks through the relevant audits.

Then, it is important to assess those risks and map them. The risk management policy shall be defined accordingly.

In particular, a policy for the management of Intellectual Property related risks calls for a virtually systematic surveillance system of trademarks among domain names.

The role of the “compliance officer”

The compliance officer must protect the company from any risk of non-compliance, and therefore ensure that the organization adopts good conduct in business practice, respects the rules of ethics and finally, complies with the various laws, regulations, or even European directives. It must therefore undertake a proactive approach, organize and implement the means necessary to comply with the regulations.

Likewise, it is important to anticipate risks: once they have been defined and supervised, the mission of the compliance officer being to protect the group and its reputation, he will have to analyze the rules and standards according to the context, the activity, and the business sector.

According to a study “Who are compliance professionals?” published on March 27, 2019 and carried out by the firm Fed Legal, 92% of compliance officers have a legal background. They are operational professionals who have a strategic vision as well as a multiplicity of soft skills, in particular an ability to persuade and an interest for teaching. In addition, 60% of compliance officers belong to legal services in which there are many recruitments, both in large and small companies.

When a company is questioned, the consequences are at the same time financial, commercial and human: the company reputation will suffer greatly. The compliance officer thus takes care of protecting his company from the financial, legal and reputational risks that it incurs in the event that it does not comply with laws, regulations, conventions, or quite simply a certain code of ethics or professional conduct.

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

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.

Written by Dreyfus09/03/2021

As of May 24, 2021, the Madrid System will officially welcome its 108th member: the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

On February 24, 2021, Pakistan deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid System with the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). The arrival of this new member brings the number of countries covered by the Madrid System to 124, and highlights the importance of this international system for the filing and registration of Trademarks.

The Madrid System provides a practical and cost-effective solution for the registration and management of trademarks worldwide. More than 1.5 million international trademarks have been registered since its creation in 1891. While the system has been in place for more than 125 years, three quarters of its member countries have joined it in the last three decades. After the recent accessions of Canada, Samoa, Thailand, and the Sultanate of Brunei, it is now up to Pakistan to join the protocol.

Pakistan’s adhesion to the Madrid Protocol enables the harmonization of Pakistani trademark law at the international level. With the filing of a single international Trademark application, Pakistani applicants now have the possibility to apply for protection in 124 countries. Likewise, Pakistan can be designated by applications from any state party to the Madrid system and international Trademark owners can easily extend their protection in the Pakistani market.

The international trademark system is a major asset for the registration of your trademarks abroad at a lower cost.

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

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.

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.

Dreyfus

Why is claiming unregistered trademark rights over a geographical name a difficult challenge in UDRP proceedings?

What happens to the domain name reserved by the franchisee once the contractual relations have been broken?

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

Can ICANN provide a solution for IT security problems?

To discover…

Google and the promotion of Essential Web Signals: how does it work?

How to develop a reliable and flexible compliance strategy for intellectual property professionals?

International Trademark: Islamic Republic of Pakistan joins the Madrid System

Unfair competition: a doomed market place

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

Sign up for our newsletter and stay informed about the latest developments in intellectual property and the digital economy!

News from Dreyfus Blog

Categories

Categories

Contact