Nathalie Dreyfus

Generic trademarks: good practices to avoid ‘genericide’

Protecting intellectual property assets is a major concern of companies. Trademarks are a subject of immediate interest, because they allow consumers to associate products and/or services with a specific company. The company is therefore more easily recognized and is more likely to see customers buy its products.

 

Once a trademark has been duly registered, a company can start to exploit it.  That is when we must be most vigilant. Indeed, a trademark may lose its distinctiveness after its registration, by becoming a generic trademark.

 

What is a generic trademark?

 

Put simply, a generic trademark is one that has become “The common name in trade for a product or service” One of the main criteria for the validity of a trademark is its distinctiveness (Article L. 711-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code). Under the article L. 714-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code, a generic trademark is devoid of distinctiveness because it has become “The common name in trade for a product or service”.

 

In other words, a generic trademark is a trademark that has become a common term for a type of product or service. It is used by both consumers and competitors of the trademark to refer to the product or service no matter by whom it has been provided. As a victim of its success, the trademark no longer enables consumers to identify products and services as coming from the company concerned. It falls therefore into the public domain.

 

As such, the company that created the trademark loses its exclusive right of exploitation. It will no longer be able to oppose the use of its trademark by third parties who seek to use it as the descriptive or ‘generic’ name of the product or service for which it has become famous. This is called genericide of a trademark.

 

Under the aforementioned article L. 714-6, an action for revocation or cancellation for genericide of a trademark that became generic requires two conditions:

– the trademark must have become the common name of the product or service;

– such use must be caused by the trademark owner, namely mostly his inaction.

 

Hence, the need for a company to act effectively against any use of its trademark as a generic term. If the owner acts effectively against any generic use, the trademark will continue to be protected by law.

 

Good practices to prevent a trademark from becoming generic

 

Acting before any commercialization, is the most effective way to prevent a trademark from becoming generic. It is also advisable not to misuse the trademark later on.

 

If you have created a totally new product or seek to become a brand leader in a new market, it is imperative to create – or use -a term to designate the new product, as there is a strong risk of confusion between the trademark and the product. For example, Apple’s trademark is iPhone, and the product to which it is applied is a “smartphone”.  Similarly, if a generic term exists but is particularly complex, it is useful to provide a simpler term, where your trademark is the market leader. It is also recommended to use the term defined in this way in agreements with third parties (e.g. letter of commitment, coexistence agreement, etc.).

 

In addition, the trademark must be used correctly in all circumstances, both externally and internally.

 

The use of the trademark must be particularly monitored during advertising campaigns. The trademark should be distinguished from the surrounding text promoting the marketed product or service by placing it in BLOCK LETTERS or, by Capitalising the first letter.

Using the trademark as a noun makes it more likely to be confused as the generic name. This practice should be discarded in favour of using it as an adjective. For example; “a Kleenex handkerchief” rather than “a Kleenex”.

Another good practice is to use the ® symbol or the ™ symbol. Although the latter have no legal value in France unlike in the United States, their use on the market is common. Promoting the trademark as an asset belonging to the company discouraging its use as a common term.

 

A trademark becomes generic mainly because of its misuse by the public. This misuse is not necessarily the result of an intend to harm. As such, it is recommended to carry out advertising campaigns aimed at consumers promoting correct use in order to avoid misuse. Preparing written standards defining the correct use of the trademark that can be easily distributed to third parties (licensees, consumers, etc.) also participates to this public education.

Avoiding misuse of the trademark also requires protection against abusive use of the trademark by third parties. It is therefore necessary to monitor product and service descriptions for new trademark applications and press publications mentioning the trademark.

 

Finally, because a trademark may be declared generic as a result of the owner’s actions or lack of action, it is in the company’s best interest to ensure that it can prove that it has taken steps to avoid the trademark becoming generic. In this respect, marketing files (advertising costs, unsolicited mentions in the press, etc.), letters of formal notice, summonses or even court decisions are all evidence to be kept.

 

In short, a potentially generic trademark remains protectable under trademark law if its owner has enforced actions against its misuse and gathered supporting evidences to prove that extent.

 

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.

FAQ

What is a generic trademark?
A trademark that, through being used as a common name to designate a product or service, loses its distinctive function and falls into the public domain.

Can a trademark be protected against genericide?
Yes, by monitoring its use, educating the public and distributors, and ensuring it is always perceived as a trademark and not as a common name.

Can a generic trademark be recovered?
No, once a trademark has become generic and lost its legal protection, it is very difficult — if not impossible — to recover it as a registered trademark.

Read More

Disputes regarding domain names <.CN> and <.中国> : it is now possible to act before the WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Centre.

The China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), registry of the <.CN> and <.中国> ccTLDs, has designated WIPO to provide dispute resolution services under the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy. Disputes in relation to these ccTLDs may be filed with WIPO from August 1, 2019.

The <.CN> Policy is ONLY applicable to <.CN> and <.中国> domain names that have been registered for less than three years.

This Policy applies to <.CN> and <.中国>domain names that are identical or confusingly similar, not only to a mark, but to any “name” in which the complainant has civil rights or interests (.CN Policy, article 8(a)), whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights.

It is sufficient for the complainant to prove that either registration or use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both elements.

The appeal jurisdiction belongs to the Courts of China or the arbitration Chinese institution, and the proceedings language will be Chinese (unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the Panel).

This adds to the over 75 other ccTLDs for which trademark owners can rely on WIPO’s dispute resolution services.

Read More

The Madrid System welcomes Thailand

Introduction

Since November 7, 2017, Thailand has officially become the 99th member of the Madrid Protocol, marking a major milestone in the expansion of the Madrid System, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This accession confirms the growing importance of this international mechanism in the global protection of trademarks.

Background and Thailand’s accession

The Madrid Protocol, in force since April 1996, allows applicants to protect a trademark in several countries through a single international application, filed with a member office and accompanied by a single set of fees. This centralized process is attractive due to its simplicity and efficiency.

Thailand deposited its instrument of accession in August 2017 during an official ceremony attended by government representatives. The accession entered into force on November 7, 2017, enabling, as of that date, trademark holders from Thailand or abroad to file an international application covering Thailand.

Advantages and challenges for applicants

Simplification and cost savings

Thanks to the Madrid System, applicants no longer need to file trademark applications country by country. A single procedure suffices to designate multiple jurisdictions, with one application and centralized fees.

Attractiveness for foreign businesses

Thailand’s accession enhances its appeal for foreign companies, which can now include Thailand in their international trademark portfolios through the Madrid System.

Regional strategy

This accession is part of a broader movement within ASEAN. With Thailand, eight of the ten ASEAN member states have joined the system a significant step toward regional harmonization in trademark protection.

advantages and challanges

Strategic perspectives in Asia

Thailand’s entry into the Madrid System represents a strategic opportunity for businesses targeting the Asian market and seeking to structure an international trademark protection strategy without multiplying individual national procedures.

Conclusion

Thailand’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, effective November 7, 2017, marks an important step in the expansion of the Madrid System. It provides tangible benefits in terms of simplicity, reduced costs, and broader geographic coverage for international applicants. This development also strengthens regional cohesion within ASEAN at a time when intellectual property protection is becoming a key competitive advantage.

Dreyfus Law firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Since when has Thailand been a member of the Madrid system?
Since November 7, 2017, following its official accession to the Madrid protocol.

2. What does the Madrid system offer in practice?
It allows applicants to file a trademark in multiple member states through a single international application and pay centralized fees.

3. Why is Thailand’s accession strategic?
It facilitates access to the Thai market through a single procedure and strengthens regional coverage within ASEAN.

4. How many members does the Madrid protocol have?
With Thailand’s accession, the system counted 99 member states as of its entry into force.

5. What perspectives does this accession offer?
It opens new opportunities for companies targeting Asian markets, notably by combining protection in Thailand with neighboring countries such as Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and Brunei.

Read More

Social media & justice: the French Court of Cassation rules on Facebook “friendship”

Introduction : impartiality tested by social media

The rise of social media has profoundly transformed human interactions, blurring the lines between private life and professional obligations. In the judicial context, this evolution raises delicate questions about the neutrality and independence of judges. The decision of 5 January 2017 (No. 16-12.394) of the French Court of Cassation illustrates this issue by ruling on the legal qualification of the “friend” link on Facebook. The highest court emphasised that such a virtual link, often created without any significant interaction, cannot automatically be equated with a genuine friendship. This clarification marks an important step in adapting case law to the realities of the digital age.

 

The distinction between virtual and real friendship

Facebook “friend”: a symbolic link, not presumed to be close

The Court of Cassation held that the term “friend” as used on Facebook reflects the platform’s own terminology rather than a traditional social recognition. In many cases, such a connection results from algorithms, professional contacts, or weak ties, without genuine personal involvement. A virtual connection therefore does not, in itself, indicate emotional closeness or influence. This position ends the automatic conflation of digital and personal relationships. It also reminds us that the law must take into account the specific practices of each digital environment.

No automatic presumption of bias

The decision confirms that a “friend” link on a social network is not, on its own, sufficient grounds to recuse a judge. Without factual evidence of a personal relationship or partiality, bias cannot be established. This stance protects the freedom to use social media while maintaining a high evidentiary standard. It thus strikes a balance between safeguarding the image of justice and acknowledging common digital practices. The Court reaffirmed that only concrete evidence can justify challenging a judge’s impartiality.

 

Concrete elements that may demonstrate bias

Evidence required by case law

For a recusal request to succeed, it is essential to provide tangible evidence. Such evidence may include:

  • Frequent and personalized exchanges between the judge and the party.
  • Public expressions of support or positions taken in favor of one party.
  • Joint participation in events directly related to the case.
  • Precise, verifiable evidence directly linked to the dispute.
  • Elements ensuring that recusal is not used as a dilatory or strategic tool without any objective basis.

Probative value and legal requirements

The elements presented must demonstrate an objective appearance of bias, as it would be perceived by a reasonable observer. The criteria include:

  • Rejection of isolated or anecdotal evidence (for example, a single screenshot or a one-off connection).
  • The need to establish an overall context and a significant frequency of interactions.
  • Consideration of consistent indicators demonstrating an objective risk of bias.
  • A rigorous factual approach, excluding purely subjective interpretations.
  • Ensuring legal certainty and the stability of rendered decisions.

indicators recognized caselaw

Scope of the decision on judges’ use of social media

Recognition of digital realities

In ruling this way, the Court acknowledges the widespread use of social media and the connections they generate. Digital relationships can exist without implying a real personal bond, and their mere existence does not inherently threaten impartiality. This recognition marks progress in adapting the law to the digital era.

Freedom of use framed by ethical prudence

However, the decision does not exempt judges from their ethical obligations. Their online presence must remain compatible with the requirements of neutrality and restraint. Any interaction likely to create an appearance of bias should be avoided to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Implications for public perception of justice

A reassuring decision for judicial neutrality

By requiring concrete proof of bias, the Court reinforces confidence in the independence of judges. This stance reassures that objective criteria, rather than mere appearances, guide the assessment of impartiality.

Risks of negative public perception

Nevertheless, part of the public, unfamiliar with legal nuances, may view these virtual links as a potential source of conflict of interest. This calls on judges and judicial institutions to educate the public about the real significance of such digital connections.

Conclusion

The decision of 5 January 2017 is a cornerstone in defining judicial impartiality in the digital age. It makes clear that the mere existence of a virtual link cannot undermine a judge’s neutrality, absent tangible proof of closeness or influence. This ruling helps to stabilise case law on recusal while providing a clear framework for legal practitioners.

Dreyfus Law firm is part of a global network of lawyers specialising in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

 

Can a judge be Facebook friends with a party to a case ?

Yes, but this link alone does not justify recusal.

What evidence can prove bias ?

Frequent exchanges, public support, or direct involvement in the case.

Does the private nature of exchanges affect the analysis ?

No, only proof of a concrete relationship matters.

Does this rule apply to LinkedIn or Instagram ?

Yes, it applies to all social networks.

Can a judge be sanctioned for online activities ?

Yes, in cases of breach of neutrality or restraint obligations.

Read More

The danger of trademark trolls!

Introduction

The term “trademark troll” refers to opportunistic actors who exploit trademark law for speculative or coercive purposes. This article examines the definition of trademark trolls, the dangers they represent, the means of protection against them, and the question of their potential strategic value.

Understanding trademark trolls

Definition and essential characteristics

A trademark troll files a mark without any genuine intention of use, with the aim of demanding royalties, blocking market access, or exerting legal pressure.

Origins: from patent trolling to trademark trolling

Inspired by practices in the field of patents, this misuse relies on the “first-to-file” principle. Trolls take advantage of companies’ delays or oversights to pre-empt their filings.

Why trademark trolls are dangerous

Legal and commercial risks

Such practices generate costly litigation, slow down innovation, and force businesses into unjustified financial concessions.

Concrete examples

  • Snapchat vs. 47/72 Inc.: the filing of “OH SNAP! CHAT” risked diverting Snapchat’s image.
  • Castel frères in China: fraudulent pre-registration of the name “Ka Si Te” led to penalties and market losses.
  • Apple-proview: Apple was forced to pay USD 60 million to secure the “iPad” trademark in China.

How to protect against trademark trolls

Proactive filing strategies

An effective policy includes:

  • Early filing of key trademarks.
  • Coverage of all relevant classes.
  • Active monitoring to detect suspicious filings.

Legal remedies and procedural safeguards

Available tools include:

  • Opposition proceedings before INPI, EUIPO, or other trademark offices.
  • Revocation for non-use actions.
  • Recognition of bad faith, illustrated by the recent EUIPO decision invalidating a fraudulent “TESLA” filing.

In 2022, Tesla filed a cancellation action against the European trademark “TESLA,” registered by Capella Eood, a company associated with an individual known for “trademark trolling” practices. Tesla argued that Capella Eood employed speculative strategies to register trademarks in order to block other companies’ operations and extort financial settlements. The EUIPO’s Cancellation Division held that the mark had been filed in bad faith and declared it invalid.

For more information on this matter: https://www.dreyfus.fr/en/2025/01/06/tesla-and-the-euipo-halt-trade-mark-trolling/

eng troll danger

Trademark trolls: A possible strategy?

Opportunism or legitimate filing

While trolls act for speculative purposes, some defensive filings may be considered strategic, provided they rest on a genuine intention of use.

Regulatory responses and recent case law

Offices and courts are progressively reinforcing the fight against abusive practices. The Tesla/Capella Eood decision confirms Europe’s determination to sanction speculative filings.

Conclusion

Trademark trolls represent a growing threat for businesses. Only proactive protection strategies and swift legal responses allow companies to safeguard their intangible assets.

Dreyfus Law firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

 

FAQ

 

What is a trademark troll?
A trademark troll is a filing made without any real intention of use, solely to block or monetize rights.

What are the risks associated with trademark trolls?
They lead to costly litigation, delay market entry, and impose unjustified financial concessions.

How can a fraudulent filing be anticipated?
By filing trademarks early and implementing active monitoring systems.

What remedies are available in France and Europe?
Opposition proceedings, non-use cancellation actions, and claims based on bad faith.

Is revocation for non-use an effective tool?
Yes, it is an effective means of cancelling trademarks held by trolls.

Should start-ups fear trademark trolls as much as large corporations?
Yes, because their financial vulnerability and growing visibility make them particularly exposed.

What is the difference between a defensive filing and a troll filing?
A defensive filing aims to protect legitimate use, while a troll filing relies on abusive speculation.

Read More

UDRP/URS: Guide to the 10 Best Practices for a Successful Proceeding

Introduction

The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) and the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension System) are two essential extrajudicial mechanisms for effectively combating cybersquatting and abusive domain name registrations. Administered under the auspices of ICANN, these procedures provide trademark owners with a fast and targeted means of enforcing their rights globally, without resorting to lengthy and costly court actions.

However, the success of any action largely depends on the strategic choice of the arbitration and mediation center. Each institution has its own specific features in terms of procedural rules, timelines, costs, and the quality of its decisions. Given this diversity, it is essential to adopt a methodical approach, based on objective criteria and a careful analysis of your needs.

In this article, we share 10 key tips to help you make this crucial decision and optimise the protection of your digital assets.

Legal framework of UDRP and URS proceedings

Tip 1 : Determine whether your dispute requires a UDRP or a URS

Before initiating any action, it is essential to assess the nature of the infringement. UDRP is appropriate where the objective is the transfer or permanent deletion of the domain name, for instance, in cases of clear cybersquatting. URS, which is faster and less expensive, is limited to temporary suspension and applies only to new gTLDs. A strategic review of the facts, the commercial risk, and long-term objectives will ensure that you choose the most appropriate procedure and avoid wasting time on an unsuitable path.

Tip 2 : Review the Supplemental Rules of the selected center

Each accredited center applies the baseline rules defined by ICANN but adds “Supplemental Rules” that can influence the process. These set deadlines for filing, evidence formats, accepted languages, and proof requirements. A thorough review before filing allows you to anticipate constraints and prepare a compliant case file, reducing the risk of dismissal for procedural defects.

Choosing based on the disputed domain name

Tip 3 : Check the policy applicable to the domain extension

Not all extensions fall under UDRP or URS. Certain ccTLDs voluntarily adopt UDRP (e.g., .tv, .me), while URS applies only to new gTLDs such as .shop, .app, or .paris. Before starting a procedure, confirm the applicability of the rules with the registry of the extension. This is critical to avoid initiating an inapplicable action, which could waste costs and delay enforcement.

Tip 4 : Select a center adapted to the language and time zone

The language of the proceedings directly impacts speed and cost. Choosing a center that operates in your language, or in the registration agreement’s language, avoids high translation costs and reduces the risk of errors. Time zone alignment is also important, as it facilitates communication with panelists and administrative staff particularly for urgent exchanges or submission of additional evidence under tight deadlines.

Assessing costs, timelines, and procedural rules

Tip 5 : Balance budget, urgency, and expected outcome

Costs and timelines vary significantly. URS generally costs between USD 300 and 500 and can conclude in under 20 days, but only provides suspension. UDRP, which is more expensive (often several thousand euros), takes an average of 60–75 days and results in a transfer or permanent deletion. Your choice should be guided by whether you prioritise speed or the permanence of the remedy.

Tip 6 : Anticipate technical and administrative constraints

Some centers require specific electronic formats, online filing tools, or strict file size and format rules. Others still require physical submission of signed documents. Failing to anticipate these requirements can lead to delays or even dismissal of the complaint. Preparing for these in advance ensures smooth procedural progress.

Service quality and legal expertise

Tip 7 : Choose a center with a rich and consistent body of case law

Centers such as WIPO have extensive decision databases and research tools that consolidate international case law. This consistency is invaluable for predicting the likely outcome of a case and crafting a strong argument. A center with few precedents offers less predictability in decision-making trends.

Tip 8 : Opt for a center offering flexibility and adaptability

Some disputes require procedural flexibility, such as extensions of deadlines, acceptance of late-filed evidence, or hearings in an additional language. A center capable of tailoring its process to the complexity of your case can greatly improve your chances of success, especially in multi-respondent or cross-border matters.

Other decisive factors

Tip 9 : Consider the reputation and experience of the center

A center’s reputation is often tied to the quality of its panelists and the consistency of its rulings. An experienced center inspires trust among the parties and can also facilitate enforcement of decisions by registrars and registries. This institutional credibility is a key factor in legal security.

Tip 10 : Assess additional services and avenues for appeal

Some centers provide added value through technical assistance, practical guides, or an appeal mechanism in case of an adverse decision. Such features can be decisive, particularly under URS where an appeal process exists. Evaluating these advantages ensures you select a center offering more than just case management.

Conclusion

Selecting the right arbitration and mediation center for UDRP/URS proceedings is a strategic decision that must account for the nature of the dispute, the domain extension, timelines, costs, language, and the institution’s experience and reputation. Applying these ten tips will maximise your chances of success and secure the protection of your digital assets.

chose udrp procedure

Dreyfus & associés assists clients at every stage of these proceedings, backed by its recognised expertise in Internet and domain name litigation.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

 

FAQ

 

What is the difference between UDRP and URS ?

UDRP allows transfer or permanent deletion; URS provides only temporary suspension.

How do I know if my domain name is eligible for URS ?

URS applies only to new gTLDs approved by ICANN.

Which center should I choose to maximise my chances of success ?

Select a center with a rich case law history and recognised decision consistency, such as WIPO.

Do costs vary from one center to another ?

Yes, each center sets its own fees and terms.

Can an URS decision be appealed ?

Yes, some centers provide an internal appeal mechanism.

Read More

Can a semi-figurative trademark used without its logo constitute genuine use? Key lessons from the “Fuette / Fusette” case law

Introduction: a landmark dispute

In its decision of February 16, 2016, delivered by the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de cassation, the dispute opposed Le Fournil, the owner of the French semi-figurative trademarkla fuettela fuette nb” designating bread and bakery services and used as a trade name and shop sign, to the company Coup de Pâtes, which marketed a pre-baked bread product called “Fusette.” Claiming that this designation infringed its trademark rights, Le Fournil brought an action for trademark infringement.. In response, Coup de Pâtes sought the revocation of the trademark for lack of genuine use.

The Paris Tribunal de grande instance, upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal declared the revocation of the “La Fuette” trademark. However, the Cour de cassation overturned that decision, providing important clarifications regarding the requirement of genuine use of a trademark. The following article examines this ruling and outlines the practical lessons to be drawn for managing and protecting a trademark.

The legal framework: Article L. 714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code and the notion of genuine use

Article L. 714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that the owner of a trademark may be subject to revocation if the trademark has not been put to genuine use for an uninterrupted period of five years, unless there are proper reasons.

Genuine use implies that the use is real, public, and in line with the essential function of the trademark: to guarantee the commercial origin of the goods or services. Evidence may be submitted by any means, provided that it reflects authentic and sufficiently significant commercial exploitation, rather than merely token use.

pillars genuine use

The system also includes a specific rule: use resumed within the three months preceding the filing of a revocation action can only be taken into account if it occurred before the owner became aware of the action or its imminence. This often-overlooked rule plays a decisive role in assessing whether genuine use has been proven.

All these elements show that the assessment of genuine use is highly contextual, depending both on the nature of the goods or services and on the concrete conditions under which the trademark is exploited. These are precisely the aspects on which the decision analysed here offers valuable guidance.

Detailed analysis of the February 16, 2016 ruling of the Cour de cassation

In its judgment of October 11, 2012, the Paris Tribunal de grande instance, followed by the Paris Court of Appeal in its decision of January 17, 2014,revoked the “La Fuette” trademark on the grounds that its use was not genuine: the trademark was neither affixed to the bread nor used with its figurative logo, and the evidence provided (receipts, bags, display panels) merely reflected the bakery’s activity rather than genuine trademark use.

The courts also held that using the verbal element alone altered the distinctiveness of the registered sign. Lastly, certain evidence of use was disregarded because they were dated after the three-month period prior to the revocation action, without verifying whether the trademark holder was aware of that action.

In its judgment of February 16, 2016 (No. 14-15.144), the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de cassation overturned and cancelled the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal.

The need for a complete and coherent body of evidence

The Cour de cassation criticised the lower courts for adopting an excessively restrictive approach to evidence of use.

Since the trademark could not physically be affixed to bread produced in a bakery, it was incumbent upon the Court of Appeal to take into account all relevant supports on which the trademark could also be used: bread bags, labels, advertising materials, the store sign, and invoices linked to the products sold, rather than relying solely on the absence of affixing on the product itself.

The Court reaffirmed that genuine use must be assessed globally, on the basis of a set of converging indicators, rather than a single isolated element.

Use of the verbal element alone: an acceptable modified form of use

Another key aspect of the ruling concerns the use of the term “La Fuette” without its figurative component “ la fuette.”

The Cour de cassation held that Court of Appeal should have determined whether the verbal element constituted the dominant and distinctive component of the semi-figurative trademark. If so, the use of the verbal element alone could be sufficient to demonstrate genuine use, provided that such use does not alter the distinctive character of the registered trademark.

This reasoning is consistent with established European case law, including the landmark Sabel judgment of 11 November 1997 (ECJ, C-251/95), which holds that a “global assessment must be based on the overall impression conveyed by the trademarks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant elements. The perception of the average consumer plays a decisive role, and the consumer normally perceives a trademark as a whole rather than analysing its individual details.”

Considering evidence within the critical three-month period

The ruling also recalls that resumed use within the three months prior to the revocation action can preserve the trademark, but only if the proprietor had not yet become aware of the impending action.

The Court of Appeal had rejected some evidence simply because it was dated after this period. The Cour de cassation held that this was legally incorrect: before excluding such evidence, the appellate judges should have verified whether Le Fournil was aware of the revocation action at the relevant time.

Practical implications for trademark owners

This decision highlights several essential points for effective portfolio management:

  • Semi-figurative trademarks must be used on all supports adapted to the nature of the product, even where the product itself cannot bear the trademark.
  • Evidence of use may consist of a wide variety of documents: receipts, display materials, commercial documentation, packaging, digital and traditional communications.
  • Using only the verbal element may be sufficient where it is the dominant component of the trademark.
  • Timing is critical: any threat of revocation must be anticipated so that a documented and timely resumption of use can be secured.

For more detailed guidance on assessing the genuine use of a trademark, please refer to our previously published article on the subject.

Strategic recommendations

In light of this case law, trademark owners should adopt a rigorous and proactive approach to documenting use. Systematic and dated retention of all materials demonstrating commercial exploitation (packaging, display items, advertising, digital content, invoices) remains essential.

From the moment the trademark is filed, identifying its dominant distinctive element helps guide how the trademark should be used and ensures consistency between the registered sign and its actual use.

If commercial exploitation becomes limited, a documented and timely resumption of use should be organised to avoid revocation. Evidence should always rely on a consistent and converging set of documents rather than a single isolated document.

Finally, when actual use differs from the registered sign, filing complementary variants may be an effective way to secure long-term protection.

Conclusion

The decision of February 16, 2016 adopts a pragmatic approach: genuine use must be assessed in light of commercial reality and the constraints inherent to the product. It also confirms that using only the verbal element of a semi-figurative trademark can amount to genuine use when that verbal element is the dominant component of the sign.

This decision is therefore a key reference for owners of semi-figurative trademarks, particularly where the nature of the product does not allow the sign to be affixed directly. It encourages trademark owners to document use rigorously, make systematic use of all available supports, and develop a proactive and structured evidentiary strategy.

 

Q&A

1. What is genuine use of a trademark?

It is the real and effective use of the trademark in the course of trade, enabling it to fulfil its essential function of identifying the commercial origin of goods or services.

2. Can a trademark be preserved if the owner proves that the lack of use is due to “proper reasons” under Article L. 714-5?

Yes. Article L. 714-5 explicitly provides that revocation cannot be ordered if non-use is justified by proper reasons. Case law interprets this narrowly: the obstacles must be beyond the owner’s control, directly linked to the trademark, and must objectively prevent its exploitation. Force majeure, administrative bans, pending litigation, or insurmountable regulatory barriers may be accepted; economic or strategic choices are not.

3. How can evidence of use be effectively secured?

The owner should systematically retain dated materials showing commercial use, regularly document actual exploitation, analyse the trademark’s structure to identify its dominant element, and, where necessary, file variants corresponding to the forms actually used.

4. Is use of a modernised version of a trademark (new design, updated typography) considered genuine use?

Yes, provided that the modernisation does not alter the distinctive character of the registered sign. Updated versions, such as changes in typography, simplified graphics, refined styling, are generally acceptable as long as the dominant element remains recognisable. A thorough redesign may, however, break the continuity of use.

5. Can digital use (website, social media) constitute evidence of use?

Yes. Digital materials showing visible and commercially meaningful use of the trademark can be accepted as part of a broader body of evidence demonstrating genuine use

Read More

Can retail services be protected as trademarks in Class 35?

Introduction

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has provided an essential clarification: retail services, when properly defined, can be protected as services falling under Class 35 of the Nice Classification. This recognition applies not only to the sale of goods but also to the sale of services, thereby expanding the scope of trademark protection for businesses operating in hybrid commercial environments. Understanding the legal framework, the conditions of admissibility, and the practical implications is crucial for any company wishing to secure its brand.

The legal framework of retail services in Class 35

Trademark law in the European Union was harmonised by Directive 2008/95/EC, later replaced by Directive (EU) 2015/2436. Class 35 of the Nice Classification covers services such as advertising, business management, and retail trade.

The long-debated question was whether the act of commercialising goods or services constituted an autonomous service eligible for trademark protection. The CJEU answered positively, provided that applications respect the requirement of clarity and precision set out in EU law.

The conditions of admissibility for retail services

To be accepted in Class 35, retail services must:

  • Specify the types of goods or services concerned (cosmetics, clothing, financial services, etc.);
  • Be presented as an activity distinct from the goods themselves;
  • Be drafted so that authorities and competitors can clearly understand the scope of protection claimed.

protection trademark 35

This requirement stems directly from the IP Translator judgment (CJEU, C-307/10), which imposes a precise and unequivocal wording of trademark specifications.

The Netto Marken-Discount ruling: scope and practical implications

In this case (10 july 2014 C-420/13), the CJEU confirmed that retail services cover both goods and services. These activities therefore fall within Class 35, as long as their wording is sufficiently precise.

Practical implication: a trademark registration can now protect both the physical sale of goods (e.g., supermarkets, fashion stores) and the sale of intangible services (e.g., online travel agencies, financial service platforms).

This reinforces the ability of brand owners to act against third parties seeking to exploit a trademark in a distribution context.

The boundary between goods and services in retail

The ruling clarifies a previously delicate distinction. Traditionally, goods fell within Classes 1 to 34, while services belonged to Classes 35 to 45. By recognising the retail of services, the CJEU acknowledges the evolution of commerce, where companies often act as both producers and service providers.

Example: a telecom operator markets mobile phones (goods) but also mobile subscription plans (services). Trademark protection must reflect this dual reality.

Jurisprudential developments in 2025

Since the 2014 ruling, EUIPO practice has evolved. In 2025, case law confirms that:

  • Specifications such as “retail services for pharmaceutical preparations” are admissible;
  • Overly broad wording such as “all retail services” is refused;
  • Courts require that evidence of use specifically relates to retail services, pursuant to Article 18 EUTMR.

The General Court has recently emphasised that these services must demonstrate a separate economic value to justify protection.

Practical guidance for trademark applicants

To optimise protection, businesses should:

  • Seek advice from industrial property specialists;
  • Draft specific descriptions of retail services;
  • Prepare evidence of use in advance;
  • Anticipate international divergences, as some jurisdictions (United States, China) do not recognise retail services in the same way.

An integrated strategy is therefore essential to avoid gaps in brand protection.

Conclusion

The recognition of retail services in Class 35 represents a significant step forward for trademark protection. The CJEU’s approach reflects commercial developments and provides businesses with an effective tool to secure their activities, both for goods and for services.

Dreyfus Law firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law firm is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

 

FAQ

1. Does the CJEU recognise retail services as protectable in Class 35?
Yes, provided they are defined with clarity and precision.

2. Does this protection cover only goods?
No, it also extends to intangible services.

3. What details must the application include?
It must specify the types of goods or services concerned.

4. What is the risk of overly broad or vague wording?
The application may be refused for lack of precision.

5. What is the practical importance of the Netto Marken-Discount ruling?
It broadens trademark protection to new forms of commerce.

Read More

Does the reputation of a trademark suffice to create a likelihood of confusion? The Ballon d’Or / Golden Balls case

Introduction

The dispute between Éditions P. Amaury, holders of the iconic “BALLON D’OR” trademark, and the British company Golden Balls Ltd, applicant for the “GOLDEN BALLS” trademark, sharply illustrates the complexity of assessing the likelihood of confusion within the European Union. By confronting two signs that differ linguistically yet are conceptually close, the various rulings highlight the limits of protection afforded to a well-known trademark when its intrinsic distinctiveness remains weak.

The origin of the dispute: confusion or linguistic coincidence?

The dispute began when Golden Balls Ltd sought to register the trademark “GOLDEN BALLS as an EU trademark for goods and services partially identical or similar to those covered by the earlier trademark “BALLON D’OR”.

Les Éditions P. Amaury opposed the registration on two main grounds:

The General Court’s 2013 rulings: dissimilarity prevails

In its initial judgments in 2013 (T-437/11 and T-448/11), ), the EU General Court ruled in favour of Golden Balls Ltd, an outcome that initially surprised many intellectual property specialists. The judges found that the signs were visually and phonetically dissimilar. The signs differed notably in their language. Even if a conceptual similarity could be identified, it was deemed insufficient to create a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average EU consumer. Consequently, the application for “GOLDEN BALLS” was provisionally accepted.

The ECJ’s historic correction in 2014: fame must be assessed

The French publisher appealed. In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) handed down a landmark decision, overturning the 2013 judgments of the General Court. The ECJ held that the General Court had failed to adequately examine the ground based on damage to fame, thereby committing an error of law.

The ECJ further clarified that even a low degree of similarity between two signs may be sufficient to establish a link in the mind of the relevant public, provided that the earlier trademark enjoys a high degree of distinctiveness and fame.

Following this decision, the case underwent a long and complex procedural journey, marked by several intermediate decisions issued by the EUIPO Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal, including a   decision in 2016 (R 1962/2015‑1), before being referred back to the General Court.

In 2018, the General Court handed down its judgment in a confirming the fame of the “BALLON D’OR” trademark while adopting a nuanced stance on whether a sufficiently close link existed between the signs to justify a finding of unfair advantage.

Specifically, the Court clarified that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 protects a well-known trademark only if the public establishes a link between the signs and if the use of the contested sign takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the fame of the earlier trademark. The “GOLDEN BALLS” trademark thus remained valid for classes of goods and services considered too far removed from the sporting field to give rise to unfair advantage.

The unexpected turning point: partial revocation of the “BALLON D’OR” trademark for lack of genuine use

A few years later, Golden Balls Ltd initiated revocation proceedings against the BALLON D’OR mark for non-use, under  Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR.

In its judgment of July 2022 ((T-478/21), the General Court issued a nuanced decision redefining the scope of protection of the “BALLON D’OR trademark.

While the Court accepted that the “organisation of sporting competitions and award ceremonies” constituted sufficient proof of use for the broader category of “entertainment services”, it upheld partial revocation for numerous other goods and services (such as printed matter, films, and telecommunications).

The evidence provided failed to demonstrate use of the trademark for each specific subcategory claimed during the preceding five-year period.

To learn more about assessing genuine use of a trademark for all classes of goods and services for which it is registered, please see our previously published article.

summary ballon dorProving genuine use of a trademark: evidence and best practices

To establish genuine use of a trademark, various forms of evidence may be submitted, such as:

  • Invoices, purchase orders, or delivery note;
  • Catalogues, brochures, and packaging displaying the trademark;
  • Print and digital advertisements;
  • Dated and archived website screenshots;
  • Market studies and opinion surveys demonstrating the fame
  • Contracts or licence agreements with third parties using the trademark.

Each item must be dated and correspond precisely to the goods and services covered by the registration. Use limited to only part of the designated goods or services may result in partial revocation.

Moreover, use must be uninterrupted or duly justified if interrupted. Sporadic or symbolic use is insufficient; the evidence must show an actual commercial presence, not merely internal use.

Conclusion

The Ballon d’Or vs Golden Ball dispute serves as a crucial reminder for trademark owners: fame is a powerful asset in trademark litigation, but it does not exempt the owner from the fundamental duty to prove genuine use for all registered goods and services.

A lack of proof, even for seemingly secondary classes, may result in partial revocation, thereby reducing the overall scope of trademark protection.

It is therefore recommended to engage an IP law firm or trademark attorney both upstream, to craft a precise and relevant specification of goods and services aligned with actual or intended use, and downstream, to evaluate risk, identify relevant evidence, and implement a robust use strategy that preserves the integrity of trademark rights.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

 

1.What is revocation for non-use of a trademark?
Under Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, a registered trademark may be revoked if its proprietor fails to prove genuine use of the trademark for the goods and services claimed during an uninterrupted period of five years. Revocation may be partial if use is shown only for certain goods or services.

2.What is the key takeaway from the Ballon d’Or / Golden Balls decision for owners of well-known trademarks?
The main lesson is to meticulously document genuine use for each product and service designated in the registration, particularly during the first five years following registration, to avoid subsequent revocation.

Can use in a single EU Member State preserve an EU trademark?
Ye, if that use produces commercial effects within the internal market, taking into account the economic context

4.What happens after revocation for non-use?
Once revoked, the trademark is deemed never to have produced effects from the date set by the decision. It retroactively loses protection for the relevant goods and services. The proprietor can no longer rely on exclusive rights, oppose similar trademarks, or prevent third-party use. The trademark may then be re-registered by another party, provided this does not create a likelihood of confusion with still-valid prior rights.

5.What practical steps help prevent revocation and preserve a trademark’s evidentiary strength?
It is essential to:

  • actively monitor the trademark’s use and archive evidence (invoices, ads, publications, screenshots, etc.);
  • periodically renew communication campaigns linked to the trademark;
  • audit the portfolio to detect inactive registrations;
  • restrict filings to goods and services genuinely used, thus avoiding vulnerabilities in non-use challenges.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not designed to apply to specific situations, nor does it constitute legal advice.

Read More

New Domain Name Extensions and the UDRP : an overview of the current landscape and strategies

Introduction

Since the launch of ICANN’s New gTLD Program in 2012, the domain name landscape has undergone a profound transformation. This initiative has enabled the introduction of hundreds of new thematic, geographic, and sector-specific extensions (.shop, .paris, .app, .law, etc.), offering businesses enhanced opportunities for online positioning. However, this diversification has also brought increased risks of cybersquatting and brand infringement, compelling rights holders to adapt their protection strategies.

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) remains the central, globally recognised mechanism for resolving disputes over domain names registered in bad faith, whether they involve legacy extensions (.com, .net) or the new gTLDs. Today, the UDRP must address a rising volume of disputes and increasingly varied contexts, requiring more tailored approaches.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of developments since the landmark Canyon.bike case in 2014, examines recent trends in UDRP disputes involving new extensions, and outlines strategic recommendations for trademark owners in 2025.

 

Context and scope of the UDRP for new extensions

Adopted by ICANN in 1999, the UDRP applies to all generic top-level domains (gTLDs), whether they are legacy extensions or part of the New gTLD Program. It allows a trademark owner to obtain the transfer or cancellation of a domain name where three cumulative conditions are met:

  • The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark;
  • The domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
  • The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

This framework applies to all new extensions, thereby ensuring legal consistency on a global scale.

three udrp conditions

Evolution of new extensions since 2014

Growth and diversification of gTLDs

Since 2014, the number of available extensions has increased dramatically, now exceeding 1,200 delegated gTLDs. These fall into several categories:

  • Thematic extensions (.shop, .tech, .app) targeting specific industries;
  • Geographic extensions (.paris, .london) highlighting local presence;
  • Community or specialised extensions (.law, .bank), often subject to strict eligibility requirements.

Trends and most-used extensions

Some new extensions have quickly gained prominence due to their universal appeal and marketing potential, such as .xyz, .online, and .shop. These have also become prime targets for cybersquatters, necessitating enhanced monitoring measures.

 

Case law and landmark decisions

The Canyon.bike case (2014)

This decision remains the first known UDRP case involving a new extension. It confirmed that the extension itself does not influence the assessment of similarity between the trademark and the domain name: the decisive element is the string to the left of the dot.

Recent jurisprudential developments

Since 2014, numerous cases have involved new extensions. UDRP panels apply the same criteria to recent gTLDs as to legacy ones, while considering the specific context of certain extensions, particularly when the extension reinforces the association with the trademark’s industry sector. Decisions also show heightened vigilance toward multiple registrations across different extensions targeting the same brand.

 

Issues and strategies for trademark owners

Monitoring and anticipation

The proliferation of extensions makes it essential to implement automated and targeted monitoring of trademark terms across all relevant extensions.

Selecting the appropriate procedures

Depending on the case, several options are available:

  • UDRP: to obtain permanent transfer or cancellation;
  • URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension): for clear-cut cases of cybersquatting, enabling swift suspension;
  • Local procedures: such as Syreli for .fr, when the domain name falls under a ccTLD.

Building strong cases

The success of a complaint hinges on demonstrating all three UDRP criteria with clear, tangible evidence of the trademark’s reputation and the respondent’s bad faith (e.g., multiple registrations, deceptive use, redirection to competitor websites).

 

Conclusion

New extensions offer businesses unprecedented opportunities for online visibility but also open new fronts for rights infringements. The UDRP remains as relevant and effective as ever, provided it is integrated into a comprehensive strategy combining monitoring, rapid action, and careful selection of dispute resolution procedures.

 

Dreyfus & Associés assists clients in protecting and defending their rights across all extensions, in partnership with a global network of intellectual property law specialists.

 

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

 

FAQ

What is a new gTLD?

A generic top-level domain introduced after 2012, such as .shop, .paris, or .app, expanding the range of available domain name choices.

Does the UDRP apply to new extensions?

Yes. It covers all ICANN-approved gTLDs, whether legacy or new.

Should all extensions be monitored?

It is advisable to target the extensions most relevant to your sector and market to optimise monitoring costs and effectiveness.

Can multiple domain names be challenged in a single procedure?

Yes, if they are registered to the same holder and circumstances justify joint action.

How can a respondent’s bad faith be proven?

Through evidence such as the trademark’s reputation, redirection to a competitor’s site, or offering the domain for sale at an excessive price.

Read More