On November 14th, 2018 Theresa May’s draft withdrawal agreement was approved by the British Government after 5 hours of deliberation by the Council of Ministers. A step has been taken towards securing a smooth withdrawal from the European Union (EU). However, two more steps need to be taken: obtaining an agreement of the 27 UE’s countries and, most importantly, the ratification of the agreement by the British Parliament.
If the withdrawal agreement is able to overcome both of these hurdles, what will be its impact on trademark rights?
There is no need to worry about intellectual property rights as EU directives have already been transposed into British legislation, and the level of protection remains unchanged.
For industrial property rights, on the other hand, the withdrawal agreement intends to preserve the EU legal framework. Therefore, the transition of the protection of EU law to UK law will be ensured by several measures.
European trademarks and designs registered before December 31st, 2020 (the date EU treaties will no longer apply to the UK) will be automatically, converted into UK national rights, without re-examination or additional costs,
EU trademark and design rights declared invalid or revoked in proceedings that were initiated prior to December 31st, 2020, will also be declared invalid or revoked in the UK.
The holders of trademarks and designs registered before EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) with a pending application status at the time of the UK’s exit, will have 9 months as of the exit date to file a national application in the UK.
Applications filed through the UK national office will benefit from the same filing date and priority date as the original application filed with EUIPO.
Furthermore, the withdrawal agreement stipulates that IP rights exhausted both in the EU and in the UK before the end of the transition period shall remain exhausted.
However, European trademark owners will not lose their UK trademark rights due to lack of use of the European trademark in the UK before the end of the transition period.
The great innovation of the withdrawal agreement lies in a procedural clarification. The question that until recently remained unanswered by the withdrawal agreement was the process for obtaining protection in the UK. The new agreement now provides for a cooperation between European and UK authorities. Therefore, all the information necessary to renew rights, held by EUIPO, must be transmitted to the UK authorities. Thus, European IP rights holders do not need to submit any documents or pay additional fees.
These measures allow right holders to maintain protection in the EU by preserving an equivalent level of protection in the UK. . Nevertheless, if Brexit takes place without agreement, these transitional measures will not enter into force. For the moment such a possibility cannot be ruled out. That is the reason why every decision on EU trademark strategy must be considered very carefully. Dreyfus, trademark law experts, is able to assist you in the decision-making process in order to protect your intellectual property rights in this current climate of uncertainty.
In concrete terms, this action plan has been developed around six themes: “Creation, Growth, Transmission and Rebound”, “Value Sharing and Corporate Social Engagement”, “Financing”, Digitisation and Innovation “,” Simplification “and” Conquering of International markets”.
Innovation at the heart of the debates
On each theme, and this is the originality of this action plan, parliamentary/business leader pairs have been formed to formulate proposals suited to the economic reality. It is in this context that the National Company of Industrial Property Attorneys or “Compagnie Nationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle” (CNCPI) was consulted, in particular with the National Intellectual Property Institute or “Institut National de la propriété intellectuelle” (INPI), regarding “Digitisation and Innovation”.
Introduction of provisional patent applications in French law
The provisional patent application is based on the US “provisional patent application” which makes it possible to apply for a patent at reduced cost without having to respect the imposed formal requirements. This provisional application must be regularised within 12 months subject to being deemed abandoned.
The aim is to encourage companies, especially SMEs, to access patent applications by giving them the possibility to submit, on a provisional basis, their application in the form of a draft and to regularise it within one year. The advantage for companies would be to be able to continue to develop their patent while benefiting from the earlier date of this first filing of the patent application.
This measure is widely criticised because of its dangerous nature since the patent can only protect what is in the provisional application and not future developments. This proposal, far from encouraging innovation, may increase companies’ reluctance to file patents.
This measure, removed from the PACTE bill, will be introduced by regulatory means.
Towards revitalisation of the utility certificate
The aim of the PACTE law is to extend the period of validity of the Utility Certificate and to promote its use among companies, particularly SMEs.
Article 40 I. 3°, for its part, creates a new bridge between the utility certificate and the patent by allowing the transformation of an application for utility certificate into a patent application. Up until now, only the opposite was possible.
Introduction of the rejection of a patent application for lack of inventive activity
This measure, provided for in Article 42 of the bill aims to create a right of opposition to patents in order to allow third parties to obtain the withdrawal or amendment of a patent by administrative means.
This proposal is intended to prevent abusive proceedings without, however, specifying what would be abusive proceedings or sanctions. It remains to be determined whether the common law system will be applied (i.e. civil liability) or whether a special system will be provided.
These provisions will be implemented by means of a ministerial order.
Next step: examination of the PACTE bill in January 2019 by the Senate. To be continued…
Dreyfus is an intellectual property consulting law firm offering a wide range of services designed for businesses involved in the digital revolution. Dreyfus takes on the challenges of tomorrow’s world and will be present at LegalTech the 27th and the 28th of November at the Cité des Sciences in Paris.
LegalTech is a major event catered to legal professionals who need one meeting place where they can discuss all the issues related to law practice.
We are excited to announce a presentation given by the founder of Harbor Technologies, Emmanuel Harrar, that will take place on November 28th at 10:15 at the level S2, booth 223.
You will get an opportunity to ask questions concerning intellectual property rights protection and innovation in the domain of trademarks, industrial design, patents, models, copyrights, domain names, social networks, and much more!
Dreyfus expertise
Dreyfus assists companies managing, valuing and defending their intellectual property in the digital and analog worlds.
Dreyfus approach
The firm has developed comprehensive online trademark monitoring services that include a domain name monitoring service. Dreyfus provides consulting services for acquisition, maintenance, valuation and defense of Intellectual Property rights in France and abroad.
Do you have any questions regarding intellectual property rights management? Meet us at the booth 223, lelev S2 !
The research titled “Trademark and Patent attorney firm perspectives for the year 2021. Internationalization, digital transition, inter-professionalism: what are the growth factors?” refers to Dreyfus as an exemplar IP law firm in many areas including domain names and defense strategies for companies and individuals on the Internet. The study also mentions the Dreyfus IPweb platform as one of the firm’s competitive advantages as it facilitates communication by offering our clients the ability to track all the information related to their file in real time.
Our award-winning IP law firm continues to invest in research and development to provide clients with top-notch services.
The decision rendered in the case between Caudalie and 1001Pharmacies marks a significant milestone in French selective distribution law. By holding that Caudalie was entitled to prohibit the platform 1001Pharmacies from marketing its products, the French Supreme Court and, on remand, the Paris Court of Appeal clarified the conditions under which a trademark owner may exercise strict control over the online distribution of its products.
This case, at the crossroads of trademark law, competition law, and distribution law, remains a key reference for companies seeking to control their digital strategy.
Selective distribution and trademark image: a structured legal balance
From an economic perspective, a trademark serves as a rallying sign for consumers. A consumer purchasing a product under a specific trademark expects a certain level of quality, consistency, and trademark universe. This dimension is particularly significant for products positioned in the premium segment or comparable to luxury goods.
To preserve this coherence, companies frequently rely on selective distribution networks, a contractual mechanism permitted under competition law provided that reseller selection is based on objective, qualitative criteria applied uniformly and proportionately, as clearly reaffirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal in its July 13, 2018 decision.
Selective distribution thus enables control over sales conditions, advice provided to customers, and product presentation, including online.
This network was based on two distinct types of agreements: one governing in-store distribution within pharmacies, and another authorizing distance selling via the Internet, but exclusively through the approved pharmacist’s own website. Sales via third-party platforms or marketplaces were expressly excluded under the contractual terms.
The emergence of the platform 1001Pharmacies.com, operated by eNova Santé and offering pharmacists a shared space to sell their products, led Caudalie to challenge the presence of its products on the site on the grounds that it undermined the integrity of its selective distribution network.
As early as 2014, Caudalie initiated summary proceedings against eNova Santé for a manifestly unlawful disturbance resulting from the breach of its network, which led to an initial order requiring the removal of the products.
However, the Paris Court of Appeal subsequently held that a general prohibition on the use of non-approved platforms could constitute a restriction of competition. This decision was overturned by the French Supreme Court on September 13, 2017, which recognized Caudalie’s right to prohibit the sale of its products on 1001Pharmacies.com, thereby referring the matter back to the Paris Court of Appeal.
The French Supreme Court’s position: recognition of a manifestly unlawful disturbance
In its decision of September 13, 2017, the French Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had deprived its decision of a legal basis by failing to justify how administrative decisions or other references could exclude the existence of a manifestly unlawful disturbance resulting from the infringement of Caudalie’s selective distribution network.
The Court therefore acknowledged that Caudalie was entitled to prohibit the sale of its products on a non-approved online platform on the grounds that such sales undermined the effectiveness of its selective network, which had previously been validated by the Competition Authority.
This decision firmly reiterated that, where a selective distribution network is lawful, the trademark owner’s contractual freedom prevails over a superficial assessment of a potential restriction of competition, provided that the selective criteria are implemented consistently with the intended objective.
The prohibition confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal
Following the remand, the Paris Court of Appeal, in its July 13, 2018 decision, applied the principles established by European case law, notably the Coty judgment (CJEU, December 6, 2017, C-230/16). This decision states that the establishment of a selective distribution network for luxury goods may be justified by the need to preserve their image and sense of luxury, which enable consumers to distinguish them from other comparable products and therefore contribute to the very quality of these products.
Thus, in order to validate the prohibition’s compliance with European Union law, the Paris Court of Appeal held that:
– Caudalie products fall within categories comparable to luxury goods, whose perceived quality depends not only on their intrinsic characteristics but also on their presentation, commercial environment, and associated image.
– The agreements concluded with pharmacists set out objective, uniform, and non-discriminatory criteria, particularly regarding online sales, which were strictly reserved for the pharmacist’s own website meeting specific conditions.
– The prohibition imposed on approved pharmacists against the visible use of third-party platforms for online sales was proportionate to the objective of preserving trademark image and did not go beyond what was necessary to achieve that objective.
The Court noted, for example, that 1001Pharmacies.com offered Caudalie products alongside goods unrelated to the dermocosmetic universe (such as fire alarms or video surveillance cameras), which was likely to undermine the prestige image sought by the trademark.
Scope of the decision
While this decision confirms established case law according to which only an objective justification may legitimize a sales prohibition within a selective distribution network, an important nuance must be emphasized.
The decision demonstrates that a case-by-case analysis is required, particularly where a company restricts its distribution network for image-related reasons. The assessment of what may or may not harm trademark image inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity.
Conclusion
The Caudalie case is a structuring decision for companies operating under selective distribution networks. It demonstrates that French law, in alignment with EU law, provides trademark owners with effective tools to preserve the integrity of their trademark image and the consistency of their online commercial strategy.
Dreyfus & Associés assists clients in managing complex intellectual property matters, providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the full protection of intellectual property rights.
What is a selective distribution network?
A selective distribution network is a system whereby a trademark selects its distributors based on specific criteria (quality of the point of sale, staff training, product presentation, compliance with trademark image) and prohibits them from reselling to non-approved distributors. This mechanism is lawful under EU law provided that the criteria are objective, applied uniformly, and proportionate. It enables the trademark to preserve its image and ensure quality standards in the marketing of its products, including online.
Would the solution be different for non-premium products?
Potentially, yes. The Coty case law emphasized the need to preserve the image of luxury or luxury-like goods. Where a product does not have a qualitative dimension linked to its image or sales environment, the justification for prohibiting marketplaces becomes more difficult.
For mass-market products, the proportionality of such a prohibition would be examined more strictly.
What practical advice can be given to trademark owners?
To secure a selective distribution network legally, it is advisable to formalize precise and measurable qualitative criteria, include specific clauses relating to online sales, ensure uniform and documented application, actively monitor platforms, and anticipate European regulatory developments (VBER, DSA). A rigorous contractual strategy remains the cornerstone of protection.
What is the difference between “visible” and “invisible” sales via a marketplace?
European case law distinguishes between visible presence on a marketplace (where the consumer clearly identifies the platform) and technical solutions where the marketplace is not identifiable to the end customer. In the Coty judgment, the CJEU considered that the prohibition concerned the “visible” use of third-party platforms. This distinction may be decisive: if the consumer is unaware of a third party’s involvement, harm to trademark image may be more difficult to establish.
What strategic lessons can companies learn from this case law?
This case highlights the importance of a consistent legal strategy. Companies wishing to control the distribution of their products must structure their network with clear criteria, formalize specific rules for online sales, and actively monitor compliance with these obligations. A rigorous contractual policy and constant monitoring of platforms help limit the risk of circumvention and preserve brand value.
Following the vote of the British people on June 23, 2016 to leave the European Union, the British authorities have issued several statements about the impact of Brexit on trademark law. As the official date of the UK’s exit from the European Union approaches on March 29, 2019, it is increasingly likely that a Brexit without agreement (“hard Brexit”) will take place. This possibility must be taken into account in order to avoid any setbacks when the day comes.
This past summer the UK Parliament stated that EU trademarks will clone into the UK register, automatically and without payment of additional fees, following Brexit.
The latest communication on the matter comes from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on September 24th. The latter issued a Guidance Notice in the event of a Brexit without agreement which confirmed the statements of the UK Parliament on the automatic duplication of EU trademarks in the United Kingdom, without additional fees, following the exit of the UK from the European Union. It was also announced that EU trademark applications pending on Brexit day would benefit from a 9-month period during which a national trademark application in the United Kingdom incorporating the same characteristics of the EU trademark would be possible.
It must be borne in mind, however, that nothing is definitively fixed and that the probability that a Brexit without agreement will take place is quite high. We therefore maintain our advice. Thus, out of caution, we strongly recommend that you register a national trademark in the United Kingdom alongside any EU or international trademark application designating the EU. In addition, for your most important European trademarks, it may be useful to register a national trademark in the United Kingdom. Finally, we also recommend that for any national trademark application filed in the United Kingdom to file in parallel a trademark application in the European Union in order to maintain the opportunity to file opposition against a European Union trademark after Brexit.
In the event of a Brexit with agreement, EU trademark applications or trademarks or international trademarks designating the EU would be protected in the United Kingdom, which could lead to duplication. In such a case, it will be necessary to redefine your trademark strategy.
In a decision dated April 5, 2018 (no. 16-19655), the Court of Cassation, provided clarifications on the requirements for assessing the likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public where there is a conflict between a trademark and a company name.
The case was between, on the one hand, two companies, Capstone System Industry and Capstone Properties and, on the other hand, Capstone. Both parties operated in the field of real estate. Capstone had registered the semi-figurative trademarks “Capstone” and “Capstone l’immobilier neuf”, both of which were subjected to revocation actions by the two companies, on the ground that these trademarks violated their prior company name. The companies based their claim on article L711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which provides that a sign may not be adopted as a trademark if it infringes on prior rights, including a company name.
Although the Court of Justice, in the case “Laguiole” of April 5, 2017 involving knives and cutlery, had already provided clarifications on the conflict between a prior company name and a trademark, these two jurisdictions do not approach the problem from the same angle although their visions appear complementary. On the one hand, the Court of Justice recalled that the assessment of a likelihood of confusion must take into account the actual activity of the company claiming prior rights in a company name, and not the activities designated in the statutes. This position had already been taken by the French courts, notably in the case “Coeur de Princesse” of July 10, 2012. In that case, the Court of Cassation declared that “a company name is protected only for activities actually performed by the company and not for those listed in the statutes”. On the other hand, the 2018 decision delivered by the Court of Cassation gave the Court an opportunity to stand on the side of trademarks to provide additional clarifications on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. In such cases, only the goods and services covered by the trademark must be taken into consideration. In contrast, the trademark’s actual activity will not have any impact on the outcome of the dispute. Thus, the Court of Cassation disagreed with the Court of Appeal for basing its decision on the actual activity performed by the holder and the conditions of use of the trademark.
Furthermore, this recent decision of the Court of Cassation reminds us that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, based on the overall impression created by the invoked prior company names and the trademark. In this particular case, the Court of Cassation criticized the Court of Appeal for not stating the reasons why they discarded the term “Capstone” in the analysis of the likelihood of confusion.
Finally, the decision states that the elements unrelated to the invoked prior signs, for instance the logos, should not be taken into consideration. In the global assessment of the signs and the invoked prior company names, the Court of Cassation criticized the Court of Appeal for having relied on the clear difference between the calligraphic and graphic charter of the semi-figurative trademark “Capstone L’immobilier neuf” and Capstone Properties’ logo. By taking into consideration the logo chosen by the entity having the company name “Capstone Properties”, the Court of Appeal based its decision on an element foreign to the invoked prior signs. However, the Court should have only considered the company name in a strict sense – that is only considering the verbal elements.
Hence, this decision is instructive as it provides guidance on the Court’s stand as to when a company name is likely to constitute a right prior to a trademark.
The Court of Justice and the Court of Cassation have previously adopted a pragmatic and practical approach in the assessment of a likelihood of confusion when considering company names, by taking into account the actual activity of the company. In contrast, the Court of Cassation’s recent decision seems to take a more theoretical approach when it comes to trademarks. Indeed, the Court only retains the goods and services indicated in the trademark registration in order to determine the activity of the trademark owner. When it comes to the trademark, the actual activity will then be left, as we understand it, to an action based on unfair competition. It is therefore important to pay close attention to the action that one undertakes and to rely on the adequate grounds.
The decision rendered by the French Supreme Court on March 28, 2018 (n°16-20.018) constitutes a significant milestone in assessing victim liability in cases of banking fraud. While the legal framework had traditionally favored strong customer protection, this ruling introduces a rebalancing by placing the concept of gross negligence at the forefront, now interpreted more rigorously.
Under Article L.133-18 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, the principle remains that unauthorized transactions must be reimbursed immediately to the customer. However, the bank may avoid reimbursement if it can demonstrate fraud attributable to the customer or, more commonly, a serious breach of the customer’s duty of care. The central challenge therefore lies in identifying such negligence, the scope of which has been significantly broadened by recent case law.
A structured analysis of fraud scenarios to determine liability
Assessing the respective liability of the bank and the account holder requires a precise qualification of the factual circumstances. Traditionally, fraud cases fall into three distinct categories, each governed by a specific legal regime.
The first scenario concerns the interception of a bank card during delivery. In such cases, liability lies with the bank. Under Article L.133-15 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, payment service providers must ensure the confidentiality of security data associated with payment instruments. This obligation is reinforced by data protection law, particularly the GDPR, which requires appropriate technical and organizational safeguards. Where fraud results from deficiencies in these systems, the bank bears full responsibility, without any fault attributable to the customer.
The second scenario involves the loss or theft of a bank card. Here, the legislator has adopted a balanced mechanism. Under Article L.133-19 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, the customer may bear a limited loss capped at €50 at most, provided no gross negligence is established. However, this cap does not apply in certain situations provided for by the statute, and the payer shall bear the full amount of the losses in the event of fraudulent conduct or where the losses result from intentional misconduct or gross negligence in complying with their obligations. In practice, when the customer acts diligently, particularly by promptly reporting the incident, the bank remains liable for nearly the entire loss.
The third and most frequent scenario involves the misappropriation of banking data while the card remains in the customer’s possession. This includes various techniques such as card cloning, system intrusions, and, most commonly, phishing (fraudulent practice whereby an individual is deceived into disclosing sensitive information (such as login credentials, passwords, or banking details) by an impersonator posing as a trusted entity, such as a bank, public authority, or legitimate business). It is within this category that legal disputes are most complex, as the line between victimhood and fault becomes particularly blurred.
Phishing: a progressive reclassification of customer liability in case law
Phishing-related litigation clearly illustrates the evolution of judicial reasoning. Initially, the French Supreme Court adopted a protective stance, holding that the mere fact of being deceived by a fraudulent scheme was insufficient to establish gross negligence. The decision of January 18, 2017 (No. 15-18102) reflected this approach, requiring banks to prove manifestly imprudent behavior on the part of the customer.
However, the French Supreme Court decision of March 28, 2018 (No. 16-20.018) decision marks a turning point. The Court now accepts that gross negligence may arise from a failure to detect obvious signs of fraud, such as inconsistencies in website addresses, spelling errors, or unusual requests.
This shift introduces a heightened standard of vigilance, requiring customers to exercise critical judgment when confronted with suspicious communications. The assessment is now conducted in concreto, taking into account factors such as the apparent credibility of the fraudulent message, the context in which it was received, and the profile of the victim.
Key contribution of the decision: the decisive role of security systems in assessing fault
One of the most significant contributions of the March 28, 2018 ruling lies in the importance given to banking security mechanisms. The Court considers that the use of strong authentication systems, such as 3D Secure, may indicate that confidential data was compromised due to the customer’s conduct.
In practical terms, when a transaction requires the entry of a code sent personally to the account holder, it becomes more difficult for the customer to deny involvement in the fraudulent operation. Although this constitutes a rebuttable presumption, it significantly strengthens the bank’s position by providing technical evidence of insufficient vigilance.
This development reflects a shift in the allocation of responsibility. As security systems become more sophisticated, the level of care expected from customers increases accordingly. Technology, initially designed to protect users, thus becomes a key factor in assessing their potential fault.
Conclusion
The decision of March 28, 2018 marks a significant evolution in the legal treatment of banking fraud in France, introducing a rebalancing between customer protection and the customer’s own duty of vigilance. While the principle of immediate reimbursement of unauthorized transactions remains intact, its effectiveness now depends closely on the absence of gross negligence, which is assessed more rigorously and contextually.
Case law thus promotes a more accountable approach for account holders, particularly in response to modern fraud techniques such as phishing. At the same time, it fully integrates technological developments, especially strong authentication mechanisms, into the evaluation of customer behavior.
Dreyfus Law Firm . assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure the full protection of intellectual property rights.
How is the burden of proof allocated in banking fraud cases?
The principle remains favorable to the customer: the bank must demonstrate that the transaction was properly authenticated and executed. However, to avoid reimbursement, it must also prove fraud or gross negligence by the customer, often relying on technical evidence such as strong authentication and transaction traceability.
Does disclosing banking data automatically constitute fault?
No. Case law adopts a nuanced approach. The disclosure of banking data does not automatically amount to gross negligence. Courts assess the specific circumstances, including the sophistication and credibility of the fraud. However, since 2018, a higher level of vigilance is expected when clear warning signs are present.
Does the customer’s reaction time affect liability?
Yes. Prompt action, particularly reporting the fraud without delay, is a key factor. A diligent response may exclude gross negligence and preserve the right to reimbursement. Conversely, delayed action may be interpreted as a failure to exercise due care.
Do banking security systems automatically exempt banks from liability?
No, but they play a crucial role. Strong authentication mechanisms, such as 3D Secure, may indicate that the transaction was validated using the customer’s credentials, creating a presumption of negligence. This presumption can, however, be rebutted in cases of sophisticated fraud.
Do new technologies increase customer responsibility?
Indirectly, yes. As security systems become more advanced, expectations regarding user vigilance rise accordingly. Customers are presumed to understand authentication processes and act cautiously. Technology thus becomes a key factor in assessing customer behavior.
Given the importance of the cybercrime issue, the Ministry of the Interior published a second report dedicated to cyber threats in May 2018. It is a comprehensive, in-depth overview of the cybercrime and the responses developed by the Ministry. This report includes three parts:
Strategic Issues Related to Cyber Threats
Uses, phenomena and perception of the threat
The actions taken by the Ministry of the Interior to manage cyberthreats.
The first part of the report identifies strategic issues related to cybercrime from social, economic and, legal perspectives. On social level it deals with the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes (crowdsourcing of terrorist activities), the development of information and communication technologies such as discussion forums and crypto – currencies, illicit traffic on Darknets (deep web) through increased use of encryption and anonymization tools. The economic level concerns the development of the cybersecurity market as well as economic counter-interference. For example, cyber-attacks motivated by greed, sabotage, espionage or economic interference have startling financial and reputational implications for organizations.
In the section on the legal issues related to cyber threats, the report includes information on the following developments: the evolution of French legislation, the impact of the directives (NIS Directive) and European regulations (GDPR),the CJEU jurisprudence in fight against cyber threats (judgment of 21 December 2016), the work of the Council of Europe, the United Nations General Assembly and the G7 Group, as well as international cooperation, considering the international dimension of cybercrime.
In the second part of the report concerning uses and threat perception, three factors were mentioned, namely: vulnerability, social engineering and malware. Theses are three main vectors of attacks such as targeted attack and deep attacks, misappropriation and theft of data, denial of service (DoS), disfigurement and telephone attacks.
The Internet with its penetration rate of 87% in France and 54% worldwide was identified as the main mean (especially through smartphones, tablets, Internet connected objects and smart spaces) used for terrorism, scams, extortion, bank card fraud, online criminal markets, attacks on minors, counterfeit works of the mind and ultimately undermining democracy. The study based on data collected by the national police shows a global increase in Internet offences by30% compared to 2016; more than 60% of these offenses are online frauds.
In the third part of the report concerning the actions of the Ministry of the Interior, three main actions were considered: prevention and protection, investigation, and innovation. Prevention actions include targeting general public, promoting awareness in the economic world, increasing territorial economic intelligence and protecting the Ministry’s information systems. The protection can be ensured by using cyber insurance to mitigate risk. Cyber insurance become common in France, regardless the fact that the intangible assets cannot be insured yet in a standardized way.
The report includes investigation procedures that go beyond current practice of acknowledging the victims of cybercrime. It is proposed to implement specialized investigation services for cybercrime as well as training and cooperation in the domain of cyber security.
Six main areas of innovation action were identified in the report:
Research and development (analytical & forensics tools as well as academic research project)
Public-private partnership
Digital transformation: better reporting,
Cyber communication (Neo PN / GN project, Digital Brigade of the Gendarmerie, establishing network of regional cyber threats
Crisis Communication: Population Alert and Information System (SAIP) and Emergency Management of Social Media (MSGU)), a better understanding of mass phenomena (Thésée Project, Perceval Project),
Remediation through platforms – assistance to victims of cyber-maliciousness, digital identity.
In the era of the digital economy and the digital transformation, cybersecurity is a crucial issue for consumers (including minors) who adopted online purchasing and usage, for the private sector (banking and financial sector, as well as the healthcare sector) and for the public sector. The strategy of fighting against cyber threats must be everyone’s business. It is therefore necessary to expand collective power to prevent and fight against terrorism.
In order to be prepared for any outcomes, including a “no deal” Brexit (a scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without agreement) the British government published on Thursday, August 16 a set of technical guidelines outlining the risks of a “no deal” outcome. The guidelines are intended to help businesses and individuals to get ready for the impact of a “no deal” scenario.
Although the 24 guidelines contain many topics, the government is planning to release 80 guidelines in total. Among other topics, the guidelines cover the issue of tobacco legislation.
The EU Member States are subject to EU Directive 2014/40 / EU “Tobacco Products” which regulates the manufacturing, distribution and sale of tobacco products in the EU. In the event of a “no deal” Brexit, the “tobacco products” legislation will no longer be applicable in the United Kingdom. It will be replaced by a UK legislation, which would contain minor amendments to the existing UK domestic law introduced in 2016.
However, another related issue remains unclarified, namely the graphic photo warnings that appear on cigarette packets, since the EU owns the copyrights for the photo warnings currently in use. In order to use copyrighted images, a copyrights owner’s permission is required. The “Tobacco Products” Directive grants the right to use the images on cigarette packets to the Member States, which makes the image bank of more than 40 photos unavailable to non-Members. In case of a “no deal” scenario, new UK images for cigarette packets will have to be introduced. In its’ notice regarding labelling tobacco products, the UK government states just that – tobacco manufacturers need to ensure that new picture warnings appear on tobacco products after Exit Day.
The tobacco products notice outlines the course of action that will need to be taken in the event of a “no deal” scenario. In September the UK Government will publish more technical details of the new regulation and the picture warnings that will minimize the burden associated with introduction of modifications. New information about the images used in the tobacco picture warnings will therefore be available when the new legislation is passed.
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 Nathalie Dreyfus21/11/2018 
