On April 28th, 2016, the Senate adopted a so-called “panorama” exception to copyright law.
What is freedom of panorama?
On January 21, 2016, the National Assembly adopted, at first reading, the bill for a Digital Republic , an amendment that introduced the new legal exception to copyright law, also known as “freedom of panorama”. Today, this exception has also been adopted by the Senate after several amendments and will be further incorporated into Article L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code.
For French positive law, the panorama exception is a new exception to copyright law for “reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, located permanently in public places, carried out by physical persons, excluding any commercial use.”
The representation of works located in public places
This issue of the reproduction of works located in public places is not a novelty.
There is currently a ban on publicly disseminating any reproduction or representation of a graphic or plastic work located in a place accessible to the public if the work is the main object without the author’s permission. The commercial exploitation of such reproduction or representation is also forbidden.
There are exceptions however. The 2001/29/CE EU directive of May 22, 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, provides the possibility for every Member State to include copyright limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws. One of the possible exceptions is for someone to reproduce and broadcast by any means architectural works, such as sculptures located permanently in public places.
The French Intellectual Property Code refers also to certain exceptions allowing some uses of works located in public places without prior authorization from the author. Article L122-5 stipulates that the author cannot prohibit the reproduction of a graphic, plastic or architectural work if this is done through the press and made exclusively for immediate information puposes and directly linked to the work.
French case law has clearly established under the “theory of the accessory” (théorie de l’accessoire), that a plastic work located in a public place may be reproduced where it does not constitute the main subject of the reproduction. In 2005, the Cour de Cassation had confirmed the court of appeal’s decision to authorise the reproduction of a memorial located at Place des Terreaux in Lyon. The court considered that it was part of the location’s overall architecture and therefore in a photograph, it was only an accessory.
A limited exception
The implementation of this exception, to a larg extent, was initially challenged by associations who aim to protect the rights of authors, in particular by the French Society of Authors in Graphic and Plastic Arts (ADAGP) which denounced the fact that architects and sculptors were deprived of their copyright. On the contrary, Wikimedia, an organisation supporting free information sharing that also promotes Wikipedia, has been in favour of the exception since it was first adopted in the French National Assembly.
Consequently, freedom of panorama was amended and limited to meeting three cumulative conditions. ADAGP also welcomed the balance found between copyright and the freedom of expression of Internet users.
First of all, the legislation provides that the exception applies to architectural works and sculptures “located permanently in public places.” Thus, the exception does not include temporary structures located in a public place.
The exception is also limited to individuals and therefore excludes associations or companies. In fact, legal persons have no legal standing in light of the freedom of panorama.
It is stated in the legislation that the reproduction of an architectural work must be done not for profit. Nathalie Martin, the Executive Director of Wikimedia France, believes that this exception is unenforceable because the licenses of Wikimedia websites allow for the commercial use of images. No photography of work located permanently in public places can therefore be distributed on these sites without the author’s prior authorisation.
The advantage of this new panorama exception appears to be relevant as it is restricted to very specific conditions. In addition, other exceptions already allow for the dissemination and private use of photographs of monuments located in public places (lit. 1 and 2 of Article L122-5 of the IPC).
In December 2015, the European Commission announced that it would prepare a report to modernize European copyright rules, including reviewing the online broadcast arrangements of reproductions of architectural works located in public places. This report provided mainly for imposing the panorama exception on all Member States, while the application is currently optional. The consultation period ended on June 15, 2016, and no further information has been received to date.
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.
Dreyfus & associés assists clients at every stage of these proceedings, backed by its recognised expertise in Internet and domain name litigation.
The June 2016 vote in favor of Brexit was a game-changer for the protection of trademark rights within the European Union.
Three options for trademark protection
Today, when a trademark owner wishes to protect a trademark and exercise his/her rights as owner, three options are available to him/her. The owner may, first of all, decide to register the trademark with the National Intellectual Property Office of the country in which he/she wants to protect the trademark. In the UK, the registration of a trademark is done with the IPO (Intellectual Property Office), and protects the trademark in the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) but also on the British Indian ocean territory, the Falkland Islands and the Isle of Man.
For all other British territories under British sovereignty bu which do not form part of it, namely the British Overseas Territories, it is necessary to file a local application in the territory’s jurisdiction. The trick is that some local applications must necessarily be performed by UK trademark owners. For example, it is impossible to register a trademark in St. Helena or the Solomon Islands without registering it in the UK.
Another possible solution is to use the EU approach to trademark protection. Thus, by filing a trademark with the EUIPO (the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property), the owner enjoys protection for the trademark within all EU member countries.
Finally, a trademark owner can register his/her trademark in the 97 member countries of the Madrid Union, through an international trademark. The filing is done with the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), and each trademark is examined according to the national jurisdiction concerned.
End of protection for the English-speaking territories
The second option, namely filing an a EU trademark application, will probably undergo important changes in the next two years, following the vote of the United Kingdom in favor of Brexit on June 23 this year.
Indeed, the European Union trademark is a single title that offers protection in the 28 Member States of the European Union and, automatically, any attached territories of the latter provided they are members of the EU as well. But this qualification, which was called “community trademar” before the entry into force on March 23, 2016 of the new Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 regarding the European Union trademark, might not have any legal effect in the UK in the future.
Before the Brexit vote, territories attached to the UK which are member of the EU were therefore subject to the regulation on the Community trademark. Trademark holders who filed their trademark with the EUIPO therefore enjoyed protection in the UK but also on the Isle of Man and the Falkland Islands. Thus, anyone who currently owns a EU trademark may lose their rights to the trademark in the UK and in these territories.
In addition, within 2 years from now, trademark owners wishing to file a European trademark will no longer enjoy automatic protection of their trademark in the UK. They will need to file two trademark applications: an application for a European trademark with the EUIPO and a national request in the UK with the IPO.
Given the unpredictability of the UK trademark protection, it is important that all trademark owners in the UK having used the national approach be proactive to safeguard their rights.
On January 12th, 2012, ICANN (the InternView Postet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated the creation of new extensions (also called gTLD for generic Top-Level Domain), which were available for registration as of 2014.
With the arrival of the new gTLDs, geographical indications were in a difficult position and their protection was not always strictly respected. It has been noted in several cases that there were shortcomings in respect of their protection and that it was difficult for experts to find a solution to any possible dispute between domain names and geographical indications.
The arrival of new gTLDs and the surrounding uncertainties
Several challenges have emerged following the arrival of new gTLDs: these are outlined by AFNIC’s Issue Paper no 11. For these extensions to create an impact and meet their objective (to make websites easily identifiable without wading through search engines), they must be used. Yet to be used, they must be known and internet users must take ownership and become familiar with them. For this to happen, it is necessary that their holders promote them through effective advertising campaigns; for example, the very succesfull communication campaign that the city of Paris launched at the end of 2014 for <.paris>. Within two hours after the opening of registration, more than 6000 domain names had already been registered.
If the new extensions programme proves to be a success and combines, on the 1st April 2016, 16 million registered domain names with new gTLDs, time will tell if these domain names will be renewed, used and owned by Internet users.Hovere, the new extensions remain problematic in terms of geographical indications: what is going to happen when a new extension bears the name of a geographical inidication or has a name similar to it? Are there specific ICANN rules to protect these geographical indications and the usage that the owner can make of it?The definition of a geographical indication
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) defines geographical indications as “a sign used on products that have specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin.”
“Geographical indications are, for the purposes of this Agreement, indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation orother characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. The geographical indication will identify a specific place or region of production which determines the characteristics of the product originating from this location.”
The quality and reputation of the the product must be attributed to that place. Geographical indications should be protected because they guarantee the origin and quality of the product which will provide reliable information to consumers who will trust it.
The difference between geographical indication appellation of origin and trademarks
We must distinguish geographical indication and both appellations of origin and trademarks:
Appellation of origin: if the appellation of origin also implies a qualitative link between the relevant product and its place of origin, the difference is related to the place of origin which is predominant over the geographical indication. Thus, the quality or characteristics of a product protected by an appellation of origin due exclusively or essentially to the geographical origin when a single criterion (the quality or reputation) would suffice geographical indication.
Geographical indication is not a trademark: the latter is “a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one entreprise from those of other enterprises”. As a protected intellectual property right, a trademark allows the trademark holder to prevent others from using it. The difference between geographical indication and a trademark is found under the regime of protection. Indeed, trademarks are afforded better protection than geographical indications. It is easier for a trademark holder to claim protection over the brand than to claim protection for a geographical indication because of a lack of uniformity between the legal rules.
However, if the definitions contain more or less the same elements, there is no harmonization in the laws and several treaties administered by WIPO such as the Paris Convention or the Lison and Madrid Agreements. Violations concerning geographical indications and domain names are handled case by case (for reasons discussed later in this article) which makes it difficult for experts to assess in which cases there has been a violation or not.
The example of <.wine> and <.vin>
One of the best known examples which portrays the difficulties encountered in seeking reconciliation between domain names and geographical indications is the matter of <.wine> and <.vin>.
In June 2012, new gTLDs <.wine> and <.vin > became available for registration with ICANN. For < .wine >, three companies applied to become registry operators, including Donuts, Inc. which also applied for <.vin>. However, most wines produced in Europe are protected by a geographical indication or an appellation of origin. Several organizations, committees or governments were concerned about this future availability of these new gTLDs fearing that the future registry operator did not respect geographical indications and allowed anyone to register a domain name with <.wine> or <.vin>.
An intergovernmental commission including government officials and representatives of international organizations was then established by ICANN. The GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) commented on the issue but its members had different views. In September 2013, a decision was made (despite the diverging opinions of some GAC members) requiring that the normal procedure of ICANN be followed: that is, “first come, first served” but also to negotiate with the future registry operators of <.wine> and <.vin>.
ICANN sought the advice of Jérôme Passa, a law professor at the Université Pantheon-Assas. In his analysis, he noted that there is no existing rule of law relating to geographical indications which would require ICANN to reject applications nor to accept them under certain conditions.
However on March 27th, 2014, the GAC issued a notice advising on the importance for interested candidates and applicants to continue their negotiations to reach an agreement on the subject. For the GAC, it is vital to add warranties in order to combat fraud in respect of geographical indications and to protect customers.
In November 2014, Donuts, Inc. won the auctions for the <.wine> and <.vin> gTLDs, despite the objections of the wine industries and of the Commission of the European Union (EU). However following a complaint from the EU and wine associations against ICANN’s delegation of <.wine> and <.vin>, the stakeholders were able to reach a private agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed.
A Sunrise Period of two months started at the end of 2015, during which more than 1,300 trademark owners registered the domain names <.wine> and <.vin> and set up websites like <sherry.wine> or <champagne.vin> which focused on sales, marketing and knowledge relating to wine. On January 20th, 2016, anyone was able to register these gTLDs.
It is to be noted that this case is significant because of ICANN’s stance on geographical indications, the violations of which need to be evaluated on a case by case basis:
Firstly, by reference to a given geographical indication which will make it possible to identify the applicable rule of law;
Secondly, by reference to the incriminating act: only certain acts will fall under this category depending on the identity of the perpetrator, the incriminating products used and the context within which the acts are perpetrated.
Ensuring that geographical indications are not being infringed will not be ICANN’s duty but that of the registrant of <.wine> and <.vin> (in this case, Donuts, Inc.) who has the duty to ascertain that the rules of law relating to geographical indications are respected.
The UDRP procedure and geographical indications
UDRP is a procedure which has been established for over a decade to combat cybersquatting. Cybersquatting occurs when a person, in bad faith or in order to make a profit, registers a domain name similar to that of a trademark to confuse internet users. The perpetrator of cybersquatting thus aims at benefiting from the reputation of a well-known trademark, allowing for the sale of products to confused customers who will think that they are using the official website of the trademark or for the reselling of the domain name at cost price to the trademark holder.
But a UDRP procedure has a limited application: it is open only to an applicant that can prove to hold the trademark rights. Thus, in principle, business names, geographical indications and personality rights do not fall within the scope of the UDRP procedure.
The only means for an applicant to win a UDRP procedure with regard to a geographical indication is to establish a link between the geographical indication and a registered trademark. However, it is very difficult to establish such a link and therefore to win a case within the context of an UDRP procedure.
The case of “champagne”
Two cases brought under scrutiny the term “Champagne”: as a domain name and appellation of origin.
On February 9th, 2008, the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris rendered its decision involving a claim by the CIVC (Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne) regarding the domain name <champagne.ch>, against a Swiss company and its French affiliate who distribute? biscuits under the name “Champagne” which the company had registered and which was available in France. The CIVC also requested the cancellation of the domain name. Indeed, the company chose this name because it matched the name of the Swiss canton of Vaud where it was indeed located.
However in 2011, the outcome of WIPO Case No. DCO2011-0026 on the domain name <champagne.co >, was different. The case opposed CIVC against the registrant for the domain name, <champagne.co>. The CIVC’s principal objective is to defend, preserve and promote the interests of the wines sold under the appellation of origin, “Champagne”. However, the CIVC failed to establish that its rights on the appellation of origin constituted an unregistered trademark which would have allowed it to assert its rights for purposes of the UDRP. According to Article 4(a) of the UDRP, a complainant must prove that the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
The expert witness was not convinced by the arguments of CIVC which evoked a mark that was unregistered but well-known. The CIVC had not sufficiently established the link between the appellation of origin and the trademark: the expert thus authorized the use of the domain name <champagne.co>.
The case of “Parma-schinen.com”
The Consortium of Certified Producers of Parma Ham owns several trademark registrations for the signs “PARMA”, “PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA” and “PARMA HAM”. A German individual registered the domain name <parma-schinken.com>. However, the term “schinken” is the translation of “ham” in German. Considering that “Parma” is protected by an appellation of origin was irrelevant to the UDRP, the expert witness took into account the registered marks to decide on the existing confusion between the domain name and the said trademarks, given that there was also a translation of the mark to be acknowledged.
It is therefore possible to revoke a domain name in the context of UDRP proceedings where an appellation of origin or a geographical indication is involved but only if there is a registered trademark which may be taken into account by the expert witness during the proceedings.
Should we expand the scope of the UDRP procedure to cover geographical indications?
In order for an expert witness to grant the revocation or transfer of a domain name in a UDRP proceeding, the main requirement is the existence of a justification of a trademark right and the applicant has to bear the burden of proof. Thus, the UDRP procedure applies only to trademarks and an applicant who has not registered a trademark in relation to a geographical indication has no other choice than to resort to legal proceedings by way of an action for unfair competition, an action for parasitism or an action for deceptive business practices.
Ultimately, would it not be wiser to extend the scope of the UDRP procedure to geographical indications and appellations of origin that have a significant economic and cultural value?
In fact, to accept that registrants use domain names enjoying a geographical indication cause prejudice to the domain name system as a whole. The system is mainly based on the trust of internet users and if they are deceived by such practices, the entire system may suffer.
The only difficulty concerning geographical indications is the absence of an official registry which does exists for trademarks. But this difficulty can be resolved if a registry is created, to the extent that it would be possible to enhance the UDRP procedure so that complaints of violation of the protection of an appellation of origin or a geographical indication are accepted.
For now however, amending the UDRP procedure to integrate geographical indications does not form part of the agenda. This matter will have to be followed…
Ten years after the judgment delivered on March 9, 2016 by the UK Supreme Court in PMS International Ltd v. Magmatic Ltd (UKSC/2014/0147), commonly referred to as the “Trunki” case, its full significance can now be properly appreciated. While the decision is today regarded as a leading authority in design law, its outcome and strict reasoning initially took many practitioners by surprise in 2016.
In order to understand its enduring influence, it is necessary to revisit both the factual background and the judicial trajectory of this landmark case.
The facts of the case: confrontation between a registered design and an inspired product
In the mid-2000s, the British company Magmatic Ltd marketed the “Trunki” children’s suitcase, designed as cabin luggage that could also be ridden by children. The product’s commercial success relied heavily on its appearance: a rigid shell with rounded contours, incorporating protruding elements suggestive of the horns of a stylized animal, combined with a smooth and minimalist surface.
To protect this appearance, Magmatic filed a Registered Community Design pursuant to Regulation No 6/2002. The filed representations consisted of computer-generated images depicting a suitcase devoid of visible ornamentation and characterized by marked tonal contrast. No written claim or description accompanied the filing.
In 2013, PMS International marketed a competing suitcase in the United Kingdom under the name “Kiddee Case.” While it adopted the concept of an animal-shaped ride-on suitcase for children and featured similar protrusions at the front, those elements more closely resembled ears or antennae rather than horns. In addition, the Kiddee Case incorporated decorative elements and color combinations absent from Magmatic’s registered representations.
Alleging infringement of its Registered Community Design, Magmatic initiated proceedings under Articles 10 and 19 of Regulation No 6/2002, contending that the Kiddee Case produced the same overall visual impression on the informed user.
Judicial trajectory: a progressive redefinition of the scope of protection in design law
The significance of the case lies as much in its procedural path as in its outcome, revealing initial judicial hesitations concerning the interpretation of the “overall impression” test.
The UK Supreme Court ultimately reaffirmed several foundational principles of design law:
Protection extends solely to the appearance of the product as represented in the registration.
In the absence of any written claim, the registered images alone determine the scope of the exclusive right.
A registered design does not protect a general idea or product concept.
The concept of an animal-shaped ride-on suitcase is not, as such, appropriable; only the specific appearance embodied in the representations may be protected.
Visible graphical elements, including tonal contrasts and the absence of ornamentation, constitute defining characteristics of the design. The monochrome treatment and smooth surface were not neutral features; they contributed to the overall visual impression conveyed by the registered design.
The UK Supreme Court emphasized that the distinction between “horns” and “ears” was not a trivial detail. Consequently, the Kiddee Case did not produce the same overall impression as the protected design, and the infringement claim was definitively dismissed.
This reasoning was consistent with established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, notably PepsiCo v Grupo Promer (C-281/10 P, 2010), which confirms that assessment of overall impression must take into account the designer’s degree of freedom and must be based on the visible characteristics of the design as disclosed. In this respect, the UK Supreme Court did not depart from the European framework; rather, it applied its methodological requirements with particular rigor.
A divided reception: rigor in the service of legal certainty
In 2016, the Trunki decision prompted contrasting reactions within professional circles. Many designers and rights holders perceived the ruling as severe, even unsettling. The notion that a product clearly inspired by a commercially successful model could avoid a finding of counterfeiting appeared counterintuitive from an economic and creative standpoint. However, such reactions reflected a persistent confusion between commercial inspiration and legally relevant reproduction.
By contrast, litigation practitioners and design law specialists regarded the judgment as a welcome clarification. The UK Supreme Court unequivocally reiterated that the monopoly conferred by a registered design is strictly confined to the graphical representations filed under Regulation No 6/2002. The judgment reaffirmed that protection extends neither to ideas, nor to market positioning, nor to product concepts, but exclusively to the appearance as objectively fixed in the registration.
Ten years later, this strict approach appears less as a restriction than as a salutary clarification. It has reinforced legal predictability in design litigation and confirmed that the scope of protection cannot exceed what has been formally disclosed and registered.
The emergence of a litigation-conscious filing strategy
The most enduring impact of Trunki lies in its influence on filing strategies. The case served as a revealing reminder that graphical representations are not mere illustrations; they define the very boundaries of the exclusive right.
Since 2016, filing practices have evolved significantly. Applicants increasingly favor line drawings to prevent shading effects, tonal contrasts or decorative details from being interpreted as limiting characteristics. Multiple variants are more systematically filed to encompass different aesthetic iterations of a product. The use of broken lines and visual disclaimers has developed to delineate precisely which features are claimed and which are excluded.
Most importantly, strategic reflection now takes place upstream. Color contrasts, neutral areas and visible structural elements are carefully assessed in light of their potential impact on the overall visual impression. Filing is no longer regarded as a mere administrative formality at the end of the creative process; it has become a structuring legal act undertaken in anticipation of possible litigation and judicial scrutiny by reference to the informed user.
The decision also contributed to a clearer articulation between different intellectual property regimes. This clarification has fostered more sophisticated combined strategies. Companies developing design-driven products now secure, where appropriate, the appearance through registered designs, technical features through patents, and distinctive signs through trademarks including three-dimensional or figurative trademarks. In this respect, Trunki did not merely refine infringement analysis; it professionalized design protection strategy and reinforced the principle that effective protection rests on a comprehensive and coordinated IP approach.
Conclusion
Ten years after its delivery, Trunki no longer appears as a harsh decision but rather as a mature and methodologically clarifying judgment. By reaffirming that the exclusive right arises from and is limited by the filing, the UK Supreme Court firmly anchored design law within a framework of objectivity and predictability.
More than a simple infringement case, Trunki marked a methodological turning point: it shifted the center of gravity of protection to the act of filing itself. In design law, strategy now begins well before litigation.
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.
1. What is “overall visual impression” in design law? Overall visual impression refers to the overall perception produced by a design on the informed user. It is not the result of a point-by-point analytical comparison, but rather a holistic assessment of the visible characteristics of the design, taking into account the designer’s degree of freedom in the relevant sector.
2. Who is the “informed user”? The informed user occupies an intermediate position between the average consumer and the technical expert. This user is familiar with existing designs in the sector, demonstrates a heightened degree of attention, yet does not engage in technical or expert analysis.
3. Does the unregistered community design provide equivalent protection? No. The unregistered community design offers a shorter term of protection (three years from first disclosure within the European Union) and generally requires proof of deliberate copying.
4. Is the infringer’s intention relevant? In the context of registered design infringement, intention is in principle irrelevant. The decisive criterion remains whether the contested product produces the same overall visual impression on the informed user.
5. Can a registered design be modified after registration? Only corrections of clerical errors or obvious inaccuracies are permitted. No substantive modification affecting the visible characteristics of the registered design is allowed after filing. Any alteration of the appearance requires the filing of a new design in order to preserve legal certainty and priority.
6. What is the principal strategic lesson derived from the Trunki case? That effective design protection is constructed at the filing stage. Litigation cannot remedy an imprecise or poorly structured registration.
The purpose of this publication is to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to particular situations or to constitute legal advice.
An ICANN working group has been given the task of analyzing the trademark protection mechanisms in light of its new gTLDs program. The group will need to improve these mechanisms in order to provide better protection for trademark holders.
This time however, a review of all mechanisms seems inevitable given they were created at the time of the previous round of the gTLDs and are therefore, tested since only a few yers.
The URS procedure (Uniform Rapid Suspension), which aims to protect registered trademarks, has also been criticized. The procedure provides trademark holders with a quicker and less expensive protection system but has proven in practice, to be somewhat unsuccessful in protecting trademark holders. Through URS, trademark holders can forbid the unlawful use of a domain name usurping their brand. However, they have no control on a potential transfer of the litigious domain name..
Different rights protection mechanisms
The working group, which consists of approximately two hundred people, will review the different mechanisms, including the URS system.
The group will also review the Trademark Clearinghouse system. Opened on March 26, 2013, this particular mechanism allows trademark holders to input data related to their trademark into a global database, both before and during the launch of new gTLDs. It then notifies trademark holders as soon as an identical domain name carrying a new extension is registered by a third party.
Furthermore, the working group will take into consideration the (Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy), which deals with disputes relating to domain names. UDRP provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure for trademark holders when a domain name uses their trademark. The issue here is about finding user-friendly procedures for trademark holders.
Wrongdoers have swindled domain name holders by selling false domain name protection certificates pretending to represent ICANN.
A well-run organisation
The swindlers implemented a well-thought out procedure in order to trick domain name holders. They made false threats aiming in order to scare domain name holders and then offered paid protection services.
They also usurped ICANN’s logo which made the fake certificates look authentic.
ICANN has never delivered certificates to domain name holders and has never directly charged domain name holders, making this practice all the more fraudulent. In fact, the application to register a domain name is always made through an ICANN-accredited registrar.
The role of ICANN
ICANN’s mission is to guararantee stable Internet access to Web users around the world. Since its creation in 1998, ICANN allows for e-mail addresses and websites to run smoothly by acting as a central entity assigning names on the Internet. ICANN’s authority is worldwide and its decisions are binding in all countries.
This attempt of fraud raises the question of the powers of ICANN. This new scam could lead to Internet users questioning the authority of ICANN and its protection services.
A novelty in the field of Russian intellectual property law: as of June 1st, 2016, an applicant for an infringement action is required to submit a letter of formal notice to the defendant and wait 30 days before initiating legal proceedings. Thus, an infringement action must always begin with an attempt to resolve the dispute amicably.
The requirement applies to civil cases except for a limited number of instances such as for example, cancellation actions on the grounds of non-use.
Prior to this amendment, sending a letter of formal notice before filing an infringement claim was optional. As of June 1st however, if an applicant files an infringement claim before a judge without having submitted a letter of formal notice, or if the applicant fails to wait 30 days after the issuance of such a notice, the action will be considered inadmissible.
The reform implies a development in the evidence to be produced by the parties during proceedings. Indeed, the parties will have to produce evidence of their amicable discussions in court. It is also worth noting that following the wording of the law, the applicant will most likely have to enclose a copy of the accompanying letter sent by registered mail, in order to confirm that the letter of formal notice was actually sent.
The new legislation does not require the applicant to produce evidence that the defendant has received the letter. However, in practice, we can expect that in order to delay the proceedings, the defendant will argue that he/she did not receive the formal notice. In such a case, the defendant would not have had the opportunity to remedy the infringement prior to any proceedings and the out-of-court phase would not been complied with.
This reform necessarily implies changes in the trademarks and domain name defence strategy in the Russian Federation.
It will be interesting to follow the case law pertaining to these novelties and their implementation.
By allowing a user access to a social media network, he or she accepts all the provisions outlined in the Terms of Use without actually being in a position to question any of these. It is therefore legitimate to question the binding force of these rules: what is the validity of these terms under French law?
What is the legal nature of the terms of use of social media networks ?
“Terms of use”, fundamentally, is a contractual document laying down the rules of the social media network. They are binding upon the social media network and the user and as such, article 1194 of the French Civil Code applies:: “Agreements bind not only as to what is therein expressed, but also as to all the consequences that equity, usage, or law impose upon the obligation according to its nature”.
However, the terms are first and foremost an adhesion contract in that the user is not in a position to actually negotiate the terms of the contract. Therefore, while the terms of social media networks are legally binding contracts, they are hard to access and contain legally questionable provisions: their binding force is therefore open to debate.
Are the terms of use of social media networks enforceable?
Terms of use are often criticized for being difficult to access. The terms are often reproduced on documents separate from the contract and it is not always easy to prove that the contracting party was aware and accepted them.
For some terms, relating to the protection of personal data, access is even more tenuous since the user needs to click on a link within the terms in order to review the relevant rules or policies.
Furthermore, the terms of social media networks are regularly changed and users are not explicitly informed of modifications.
Are the terms of use of social media networks lawful ?
Social media networks are aware of content posted by a user and the terms implement licences allowing them to use that content. A judgment of the Paris Court of first instance (“Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris”) on May 29, 2012, TF1 vs. YouTube, was an opportunity for judges to indicate that the license agreement in YouTube’s Terms of Use was questionable under copyright law, since it failed to set out limits in terms of time and space to the free transfer of rights.
Can some clauses of the terms of social media networks be regarded as unfair under French law?
The clauses, as presented, cause a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties. The general public and consumer rights groups therefore tend to condemn these clauses, which they define as unfair.
The majority of the clauses in question deal with the protection of privacy and personal data. The Unfair Terms Commission, in its recommendation No. 2014-02 of November 7, 2014 recommends the removal of terms relating to the legibility of the contract, the formation of the contract, personal data, intellectual property rights or the modification of the terms as these create a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract.
Until recently, it was not possible in France to file a class action. The Hamon Act of March 17, 2014, introduced the class action in the Consumer Code, thus enabling consumer associations to take legal action to obtain compensation for individual harm where a social media network [sic] has failed to comply with its legal or contractual obligations.
Social media network terms of use and conflicts of jurisdiction
The terms of use of social media networks are now being construed in conjunction with rules regarding conflict of law and jurisdiction. In 2012, the Pau Court of Appeal clarified the applicability of terls in the framework of an action brought against Facebook. A Facebook user objected to a clause of the terms of use conferring jurisdiction to the California courts. The judges rejected the application, ruling that the clause was written in English and the font was too small [sic]. This judgment confirms that the parties to a contract can decide on the competent jurisdiction.
In a more recent decision of March 5, 2015, judges of the Paris Court of first instance (“Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris”) considered that they had jurisdiction over the validity of the jurisdiction clause contained in the Facebook terms of use. The Court then declared the jurisdiction clause invalid and unenforceable on the grounds of the unfair nature of the clause. The Court of appeal, in its judgment of February 12, 2016, upheld the decision. Consequently, the Paris Court of first instance has jurisdiction over the dispute between the social media network and a Facebook user whose account had been disabled (after posting a photo of a famous painting by Courbet called “L’origine du monde“.)
The question of the scope of application of the solution arises following the publication of the Ordinance No. 2016-131 of February 10, 2016 reforming the French Civil Code. Article 1171 of the Civil Code, which will come into effect on October 1, 2016, states that “in an adhesion contract, any clause which generates a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties is deemed to be void.” Professionals will therefore be able to invoke this article which gives them a wider scope of defense and places them on the same level as non-professionals and consumers who are protected against unfair terms according to the Article L212-1 of the French Consumer Code.
The DGCCRF (French Consumer Authority) has also looked at the case of Facebook. In a statement on February 9, 2016, the Authority declared having examined the Facebook terms of use and having found several clauses to be abusive: in particular, the clause authorising Facebook to remove, at its own discretion, content or information published on the network by a user and the clause in which Facebook reserves the right to unilaterally change the privacy policy without informing the user. The DGCCRF has publicly urged Facebook to remove these clauses which are considered unfair.
On January 26th, 2016, Facebook was served a formal notice by the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority) asking the company respect the Data Protection Act of January 6, 1978 in the area of collection and use of data. The social media network was accused of monitoring the navigation of users on other websites without their knowledge, even if such users are not in possession of a Facebook account. Since then, no information has been published neither by the CNIL nor by Facebook on the consequences of this notice. It is definitely a case to watch closely.
One can only congratulate French judges for having stood up to social media network providers and ensuring they respect the fundamental values of French law.
Dreyfus recently held a seminar on trademarks and domain names in Iran as international brands look toward the country for opportunities. Nathalie Dreyfus reveals what was discussed, and how brands can benefit.
Click here to read the IPPro The Internet’s feature on the event.
For further information on the event or future events, please contact our team.
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 Dreyfus06/12/2016 
On April 28th, 2016, the Senate adopted a so-called “panorama” exception to copyright law.
Dreyfus recently held a seminar on trademarks and domain names in Iran as international brands look toward the country for opportunities. Nathalie Dreyfus reveals what was discussed, and how brands can benefit.