Argentina’s Network Information Centre (NIC) has recently adopted a new system for domain name registration.
Under this new system, applications must be made using one account per applicant on the registry operator’s website. Physical and legal persons applying from abroad must present a certified copy of their passport or the Minutes of their Incorporators Meeting, a copy of their articles of association and proof of power of attorney.
Each owner can thereafter reserve up to 200 domain names, receive alerts when a domain name becomes available and request the nullity of a domain name that has already been reserved by a third party if he can provide the necessary proofs of ownership.
Domain names could be automatically renewed up to an including October 27 2013. After this date, only registered users will be able to apply for renewal!
ICANN delegated the first 4 generic extensions on 21 October 2013.
شبكة (xn--ngbc5azd) – an Arabic word meaning “Web” or “Network” Register: International Domain Registry Pty. Ltd.
онлайн (xn--80asehdb) – the Russian word for “Online” Register: Core Association
сайт (xn--80aswg) – in Russian “Website” Register: Core Association
游戏 (xn--unup4y) – the Chinese word for “Game” Register: Spring Fields, LLC
We note that all these extensions are in non-Latin characters. We can only congratulate ICANN on this decision that enables non English-speaking users to be able to communicate in their own language.
The recent launch of the new gTLDs is opening up opportunities and projects to head off the competition. Several registry operators are allowing the registration of new domains under existing or recently-created extensions.
The digital domains .TEL
On October 15 2013 the registry operator Telnic launched digital domains comprised of 8 digits or more. Domain names such as “00442074676450.tel” or “0208-467-6450.tel” are available for registration on a “first-come, first-served basis”.
Re-opening of extensions .CO.DE and .CO.NU
The registry operator DNNext S.A. has decided to re-open for registration domain names under non-official extensions.CO.DE for Germany and .CO.NU for the island of Niue. It is important to note that these extensions are not affiliated to the official registers DE and NU but only to a single register DNNext.
A .NZ in competition with .KIWI
Over in New Zealand on October 11, the Council of InternetNZ approved for registration domain names under .NZ which will be in addition to third level registrations under extensions such as .CO.NZ, .ORG.NZ or .NET.NZ.
The registry operator DOT KIWI will offer for registration names in .NZ in addition to .KIWI in the next few months. They stress, however, that the registry operator’s main problem concerning these registrations is the fact that those who invested in a .CO.NZ will perhaps not be able to safeguard their domain in .NZ, due to lack of finance.
Le TPICE a validé le rejet de l’opposition à une demande de marque figurative opéré par l’Office de l’Harmonisation dans le Marché Intérieur (ci-après OHMI) et sa chambre des recours le 17 mai 2013.
Le 13 juin 2006, la société Mundipharma AG a demandé l’enregistrement de la marque figurative suivante:
L’enregistrement a été demandé pour la classe 5, à savoir les « produits pharmaceutiques pour la médecine humaine, à savoir analgésiques ».
Le 3 mai 2007, Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC a déposé une opposition à la demande précitée basée sur les marques françaises et internationales suivantes couvertes également en classe 5:
Marque française n°94500843
Marque Internationale n° 627401
Le 30 juillet 2010 la division d’opposition de l’OHMI a rejeté l’opposition et par décision du 22 juillet 2011, la quatrième chambre des recours de l’OHMI a également rejeté le recours.
La chambre des recours pour rendre sa décision s’est appuyée sur une comparaison des produits puis sur une comparaison des signes en présence.
En ce qui concerne la comparaison des produits, ils sont identiques et relèvent de la classe 5 « produits pharmaceutiques ».
En ce qui concerne la comparaison des signes, la chambre a cité une jurisprudence constante(1) qui rappelle que « l’appréciation de la similitude visuelle, phonétique ou conceptuelle des signes en conflit doit être fondée sur l’impression d’ensemble produite par ceux-ci, en tenant compte, notamment, de leurs éléments distinctifs et dominants ».
Sur l’analyse visuelle, la Chambre des recours a considéré que l’impression visuelle créée par l’un et l’autre signe est assez différente.
Sur le plan phonétique, elle a souligné que l’appréciation de la similitude des signes ne peut être réalisée car les signes sont purement figuratifs et abstraits.
Enfin, sur le plan conceptuel, elle a considéré qu’aucune des formes ne présente un contenu conceptuel. Les signes ne sont donc pas comparables sur ce plan là.
Le TPICE a approuvé la conclusion faite au point 23 de la décision attaquée : les signes ne sont similaires sur le plan visuel qu’à un degré marginal. En ce qui concerne le caractère distinctif des marques antérieures, la jurisprudence admet qu’une marque possède un caractère distinctif particulier, soit intrinsèquement, soit grâce à la notoriété dont elle jouit auprès du public(2).
En l’espèce les marques antérieures présentent un caractère distinctif faible. Elles sont composées de deux formes géométriques simples et n’attirent pas l’attention du consommateur.
De plus, l’argument tiré du caractère distinctif accru par l’usage des marques antérieures doit être rejeté. En l’espèce, les produits couverts par les marques en conflit sont identiques.
Les signes quant à eux présentent un faible degré de similitude sur le plan visuel et ne peuvent être comparés ni sur le plan phonétique ni sur le plan conceptuel.
Le Tribunal en tire donc la conclusion qu’il n’y a pas de risque de confusion !
(1) CJCE 12 Juin 2002, OHMI C/Shaker C-335/05.
(2) (CJUE 1er Novembre 1996, SABEL C-251-95).
As we had previously announced, the Pioneer program for the first 100 names to subscribe to .PARIS was launched on September 16 2013 and will close to offers on December 16 2013.
In the light of this major project that should create numerous opportunities, a few details need to be outlined.
The Pioneer program launched by the city of Paris involves preselecting a hundred projects from those that have made a bid, with a focus on projects that would enhance the visibility of .PARIS from the outset. Two types of project are being encouraged in order to promote companies or associations linked to Paris.
The first type relates to concessions on generic names under .PARIS, for example boulangerie.paris or hotel.paris. In such cases, the city of Paris will be remunerated based on a share of project incomes.
The second type will promote the activities of firms and associations linked to Paris. In the context of these bids, the subscription costs will depend on the Pioneer category under which the company wishes to register its project:
In the category of “ambassador” Pioneers, subscription costs could be as much as €100,000. These Pioneers will be strongly featured in the promotional communication campaign surrounding the .PARIS project.
In the category of “business” Pioneers, the budget required will amount to a few thousand euros. These pioneers will also be included in the communication campaign but to a lesser extent.
In the “ecosystem” category, start-ups and charities will benefit in particular from nominal subscription costs of around one hundred euros.
In the “individual” category, the costs will only be tens of euros in order to let the ordinary citizens of Paris have their say.
In this Pioneer program, guarantees will be given in order to ensure that intellectual property rights are respected: the city of Paris will be installing a system of risk detection before any projects are selected! The intention is that each of the preselected projects (between 100-200) will be analyzed to ensure that there is no conflict with previously registered trademarks.
To achieve this, databases will be consulted (INPI, OHIM, WIPO) and there will be interaction with trademarks registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Once these checks are completed, a project could be rejected if there is a significant risk of conflict with recognized marks.
Once a project has been validated, a specific opposition procedure will be open to rights holders. Certain conditions will have to be met in order to use this procedure, which may be subject to further amendments:
To be the holder of a verbal trademark registered before the month of July 2011, legally recognized in France and known in the public sector (nb: There will certainly be a degree of flexibility as to the trademark registration date. The aim here is to ensure that the mark had not been registered for the sole purpose of opposing projects and to avoid fraud. It remains to be seen how the question of public sector awareness will be defined.)
The domain name Pioneer must be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of the opposing rights holder.
The Pioneer must not have a legitimate interest in the Pioneer domain name.
The Pioneer domain name must have been solicited in bad faith, with the specific aim of interrupting the commercial operations of a third party, by preventing the name from being re-used or in order to draw away a third party’s customers.
This procedure is to be directly handled internally by the registrar of .PARIS and will only entail relatively limited costs.
Our office can advise you on the best strategy to adopt and will be happy to provide you with any additional information that you may require.
A Californian Federal Court(1) recently awarded Facebook $2.8million in damages in a case that involved 10 holders of domain names and 105 contested names.
The Court based its decision on the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). This Act aims to crack down on the activities of cybersquatters and render legally responsible any person who, in bad faith, registers a domain name that is similar or identical to a trademark, well-known or otherwise, with the aim of making a direct or indirect profit. The text specifies that fines can be imposed from $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name.
Facebook had requested the maximum amount in damages, i.e. $100,000 per counterfeit domain name without differentiating between varying levels of abuse. Judgment was rendered by default since none of the accused appeared in court or even responded to Facebook’s complaint.
In order to evaluate the damages awarded against each of the defendants, the Court based its criteria on the ACPA but also on the circumstances of each individual case. In practice, even if all the defendants had acted in bad faith with deliberate intent, the Court decided to distinguish between differing degrees of malevolence and abuse.
The factors taken into account by the Court notably included:
The number of counterfeit domain names: the Court considered that the number of counterfeit domain names held by each defendant was an indicator of bad faith and fixed thresholds from $5,000 to $25,000 according to the number of domain names registered by each of the accused.
The way in which the word “Facebook” had been spelled: damages were doubled for defendants who had registered a domain name with the aim of deceiving consumers into thinking that they were accessing the official Facebook site, leading them moreover into divulging personal details.The Court awarded a further $5,000 in damages against cybersquatters who had left the spelling of the word Facebook unchanged. In addition, the fact of using the Facebook trademark correctly spelled alongside other words also spelled correctly was deemed to be even more misleading and was penalized by an increased fine of $10,000 per domain name.
The track-record of the counterfeiter: the amount of damages was also doubled for cybersquatters or typosquatters guilty of previous similar offences.
In this way, the Californian Federal Court applied in an appropriate manner the principles established by the ACPA, whilst sending a clear and dissuasive message to cybersquatters and typosquatters who attempt to misuse well-known internet trademarks.
Facebook is not the first company to act on the basis of the ACPA text. Other companies such as Microsoft(2) have already based their lawsuit on this text in the past in order to protect their on-line presence and their reputation. Rights holders protected in the United States can file a civil action based on the ACPA text irrespective of the defendant’s location. The judicial process is certainly a lot longer and more costly than a UDRP case, but the amount in damages awarded by American judges suggests that lawsuits based on the ACPA are likely to increase in future according to the specific aspects of each case. To be considered on an individual basis.
(1) California’s Northern District Federal Court, April 30 2013.
(2) Washington District Federal Court, Microsoft Corp. v Shah, July 20 2011.
To reach this result, ICANN based its recommendations on stakeholder input received during the ICANN meeting in Beijing in April, comments provided by various individuals and stakeholder groups in May and June, and also the discussions during the ICANN meeting in Durban in July.
The Agreement between the Registries and ICANN means that the Registry Operator of the new extension has to integrate in the registry-registrar Agreement all ICANN warrants and all mechanism of rights protection independently developed. Thus, the Registry has to consider each requirement – in accordance with the ICANN established requirements – as imperative and immediately applicable.
These final recommendations provide some novelties.
The change provided to the Sunrise period
The Sunrise period designates the priority period for the new strings launch. During this period, a priority record process will be implemented. It allows a brand owner a priority to register domain names reproducing its trademarks. This procedure is mandatory for new Registry Operators.
The Sunrise period also includes the priority process for conflict resolution.
The main difference introduced by ICANN in this publication is the creation of an “End-Date Sunrise”. The Registries will have to choose between:
A “Start-Date Sunrise”. It allows the Registry to allocate domain names before the end of the Sunrise. If a Registry wants to do this, it must provide advance notice of the starting date for the Sunrise period, at least 30 days prior to opening up to public registration.
An “End-Date Sunrise”. The Registry can’t allocate any claimed domains until the end of the Sunrise. In this case the Sunrise may start at any time but the Registry must provide advance notice of the end of the Sunrise and that at least 60 days before to opening up to public registration.
Given the planned waiting period to avoid name Collision after a registry agreement is signed, most of the Registries would probably choose an “End-Date Sunrise”.
The changes provided to the Claims Service
Registry Operators must provide the Claims Services for at least the first 90 days of the initial public registration instead of the 60 days as before. The Sunrise Period and the Claims Period must be two distinct phases and must not overlap.
The creation of another Registration Period
Registry Operators will have the possibility of establishing additional periods during which they will accept domain name registrations following the Sunrise Period but prior to opening up to public registrations (a “Limited Registration Period”). The Sunrise Period and a Limited Registration Period can overlap, provided that Registry Operator does not allocate or register any domain names in a Limited Registration Period until all Sunrise Registrations have been allocated and registered.
If a Registry Operator offers a Limited Registration Period, the Registry Operator must provide the Claims Services during the entire Limited Registration Period in addition to the standard 90 days Claims Period.
The possibility to register 100 domain names
ICANN also points out that each Registry Operator would have the possibility to allocate or register for itself up to 100 domain names plus their IDN variants.
ICANN is considering the signature of an addendum to the Trademarks Clearinghouse (TMCH) Requirements which would allow Registry Operators to allocate or register prior or during the Sunrise some or all of the 100 domain names, to third parties.
It remains to be seen if these requirements will be followed…
Our office will broach the following subject: “Domain name jurisprudence news: focus on new gTLDs disputes”.
The virtual world is in constant evolution. This is why it is important to understand the new digital challenges and be aware of the legal risks relating to web 2.0. During this day, participants will share their knowledge on a variety of topics including the arrival of new gTLDs , the latest domain name litigations, e-reputation or familiarization with Cloud Computing.
On July 16, 2013, the Tunisian Government submitted to the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) its request to join the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks (known as the “Madrid Protocol”).
The Madrid Protocol became effective with respect to Tunisia on October 16, 2013.
This accession contract contains the following declarations:
the time limit of one year to notify a refusal of protection is replaced by 18 months and a refusal resulting from an opposition can be notified after the expiry of the 18-month time limit, and
Tunisia wants to receive an individual fee instead of a share in the revenue produced by the supplementary and complementary fees concerning either an international registration or a renewal registration.
This new accession favors trademarks holders who might include Tunisia when depositing an international mark or extending existing international registrations to Tunisia.
Some countries have put in place new validation procedures or have accepted for registration names composed of accented characters (or Internationalised Domain Name – IDN).
ARGENTINA: The Argentinean registry Nic.ar has set up a validation procedure for previously registered domain names that will be effective on October 28, 2013. Domain name owners will have to submit authenticated documents proving their identity.
If the registered data is not validated, domain names could be blocked or cancelled. These domain names won’t be able to be renewed, transferred or updated!
COSTA RICA: Nic Costa Rica will update contact information for domain names in .CR between October 7 and November 29, 2013. This update will be carried out by email or phone.
COLOMBIA: From October 15, French accented characters will be accepted for .CO domain name registration. There will be no particular registration period but a “first come, first served” basis will be put in place for domain name allocation.
Besides French IDN, the registry will accept German, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese and Russian characters. Since the beginning of 2013, Scandinavian characters (Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish) have been already accepted.
TUNISIA: The Tunisian Internet Agency (ATI) approved two characters’ domain name registration and new IDN: á, â, ã, ä, å, æ, ç, è, é, ê, ë, ì, í, î ï, ñ, ò, ó, ô, õ, ö œ, ù, ú, û, ü, ý, ÿ, ß.
Contrary to Colombia, Tunisia is already organising registration periods:
from August 1, 2013 until January 31, 2014 for local governmental organisations,
from October 1, 2013 until January 31, 2014 for applicants holding registered trademark in Tunisia,
from December 2, 2013 until January 31, 2014 for applicants holding a .TN registration and
after January 31, 2014 registrations will be opened without any condition.
SEYCHELLES: .SC registry will accept from now on one and two characters’ domain name registration (except country codes from ISO3166 list). The registry wants to identify applicants with the best potential in order to maximise the development of high-quality names and increase the use of .SC domain names. This program won’t be opened to marketing on Internet but aims to find applicants who have a legitimate right to promote the .SC trademark as a strong one.
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.
Written by Dreyfus31/10/2013 
Argentina’s Network Information Centre (NIC) has recently adopted a new system for domain name registration.
Le TPICE a validé le rejet de l’opposition à une demande de marque figurative opéré par l’Office de l’Harmonisation dans le Marché Intérieur (ci-après OHMI) et sa chambre des recours le 17 mai 2013.
