The French Hamon Act of March 17, 2014 on consumer law aims at increasing consumer protection by compelling businesses to provide information on every purchase through a “sustainable medium”. In one of our previous articles, we outlined that that law also aims at extending the withdrawal period from 7 to 14 days and at establishing a number of obligations in relation to the pre-contractual information provided on an e-commerce website.
A decree dated 17 September 2014 on pre-contractual and contractual information to consumers and to the right of withdrawal, implementing the Hamon Law, details the nature of the pre-contractual information that businesses shall provide before the parties enter into the agreement. The purpose of these pre-contractual and contractual information is to protect consumers on the Internet. The trader’s name and contact details, methods of payment, delivery, performance and claim settlement, legal and commercial guarantees and finally the features and interoperability of digital content should be stated. With respect to the withdrawal form, the decree requires its compulsory integration in the agreement including explanations on how to exercise the withdrawal right.
The decree was enforceable immediately and thus came into force September 20, 2014. The Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes (French Competition, Consumer and Fraud Control Authority) may start implementing controls immediately to ensure compliance with the new rules.
In order to comply, businesses are strongly advised to update their contractual information to include the withdrawal form and the procedures to exercise the withdrawal right amongst others.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has provided an essential clarification: retail services, when properly defined, can be protected as services falling under Class 35 of the Nice Classification. This recognition applies not only to the sale of goods but also to the sale of services, thereby expanding the scope of trademark protection for businesses operating in hybrid commercial environments. Understanding the legal framework, the conditions of admissibility, and the practical implications is crucial for any company wishing to secure its brand.
The legal framework of retail services in Class 35
Trademark law in the European Union was harmonised by Directive 2008/95/EC, later replaced by Directive (EU) 2015/2436. Class 35 of the Nice Classification covers services such as advertising, business management, and retail trade.
The long-debated question was whether the act of commercialising goods or services constituted an autonomous service eligible for trademark protection. The CJEU answered positively, provided that applications respect the requirement of clarity and precision set out in EU law.
The conditions of admissibility for retail services
To be accepted in Class 35, retail services must:
Specify the types of goods or services concerned (cosmetics, clothing, financial services, etc.);
Be presented as an activity distinct from the goods themselves;
Be drafted so that authorities and competitors can clearly understand the scope of protection claimed.
This requirement stems directly from the IP Translator judgment (CJEU, C-307/10), which imposes a precise and unequivocal wording of trademark specifications.
The Netto Marken-Discount ruling: scope and practical implications
In this case (10 july 2014 C-420/13), the CJEU confirmed that retail services cover both goods and services. These activities therefore fall within Class 35, as long as their wording is sufficiently precise.
Practical implication: a trademark registration can now protect both the physical sale of goods (e.g., supermarkets, fashion stores) and the sale of intangible services (e.g., online travel agencies, financial service platforms).
This reinforces the ability of brand owners to act against third parties seeking to exploit a trademark in a distribution context.
The boundary between goods and services in retail
The ruling clarifies a previously delicate distinction. Traditionally, goods fell within Classes 1 to 34, while services belonged to Classes 35 to 45. By recognising the retail of services, the CJEU acknowledges the evolution of commerce, where companies often act as both producers and service providers.
Example: a telecom operator markets mobile phones (goods) but also mobile subscription plans (services). Trademark protection must reflect this dual reality.
Jurisprudential developments in 2025
Since the 2014 ruling, EUIPO practice has evolved. In 2025, case law confirms that:
Specifications such as “retail services for pharmaceutical preparations” are admissible;
Overly broad wording such as “all retail services” is refused;
Courts require that evidence of use specifically relates to retail services, pursuant to Article 18 EUTMR.
The General Court has recently emphasised that these services must demonstrate a separate economic value to justify protection.
Anticipate international divergences, as some jurisdictions (United States, China) do not recognise retail services in the same way.
An integrated strategy is therefore essential to avoid gaps in brand protection.
Conclusion
The recognition of retail services in Class 35 represents a significant step forward for trademark protection. The CJEU’s approach reflects commercial developments and provides businesses with an effective tool to secure their activities, both for goods and for services.
Dreyfus Law firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.
For the first time in Europe, a judge ordered Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block several sites infringing trademark rights[1]. In the European Union, it was previously only feasible to block sites under copyright provisions, or for disruption of public order in other fields such as child pornography. Henceforth, following the initiative of the English judge, it appears that trademark law allows for the possibility to seek an order from a Court to block trademark infringing websites.
The dispute arose between several companies in the luxury sector, including Cartier, Montblanc and Richemont, and five major Internet service providers. These companies filed suit further to trademark infringing acts in order to block access to six sites where counterfeit goods were offered and sold. The Court found that infringement did occur and as a result, the major English ISPs namely BSkyB, BT, TalkTalk and Virgin EE were forced to block access to those sites that illegally reproduced the trademarks of these companies in the luxury industry.
This order of October 17, 2014 was made pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright Act, but the High Court of Justice pointed out that there is no legal equivalent in terms of trademarks. The Judge relied on many recent injunctions cases on copyright law in respect of streaming or downloading sites. This Article, when applied to trademark law, imposes three conditions to allow blocking: Firstly, the ISPs must be technical intermediaries; secondly the trademark infringement should be characterised and thirdly, the intermediaries must be informed of the infringement. In addition, the Order has been rendered in interpreting Article 11 of the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights which is not limited solely to copyright infringements but to all intellectual property rights. Accordingly, the Judge held that the English High Court of Justice had jurisdiction to order an ISP to block one or more sites infringing trademark law.
The Court also expressed its reservations concerning the implementation of site blocking measures by the ISPs to prevent abuse. The latter may ask the judge to annul the order in the event of a change in circumstances. The Court referred in particular to the effectiveness of blocking measures and the costs they might entail. Moreover, blocking measures should not last any longer than necessary, which remains somewhat vague. However, the Court also incorporated a “sunset clause” in this type of order so as to prevent trademark owners from targeting too many sites incessantly. According to this clause, the order shall cease at the end of a defined period, unless ISPs agree to the order being continued or the Court orders that the measures should be continued. This Order marks an inaugural step for trademark law in Europe, will it pave the way for others to follow suit?
[1] High Court of Justice of London, Cartier, Montblanc, Richemont c/ BSkyB, BT, TalkTalk, EE and Virgin, October 17, 2014.
An important consultation on digital technology was launched on October 4 by the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls. It is headed by the French Digital Council (CNNum) and is accessible to all on contribuez.cnnumerique.fr until January, 2015.
CNNum invites all French people to submit their opinions and expertise to identify the key issues of digital technology. Therefore, companies, associations and citizens can address questions relating to the impact of digital technologies on the economy and society. The public can also comment on the practicability of the proposed solutions.
The consultation has been open since October 4 and covers topics such as “Growth, innovation, disruption” or “Loyalty in the digital environment.” As from November 3, two other themes are available: “The digital transformation of public action” and “society faced with digital transformation.” Yet, the schedule is tight, with only a few weeks to gather the proposals of the French public on matters of great significance. Axelle Lamaire, State Secretary for digital economy, cites urgency as a justification for the short timeframe, since “some would wish to acquire the Internet space to make it an object of power.”
For each topic, brainstorming sessions will be organized throughout France. Through this consultation, everyone can evaluate the proposals of CNNum, take a stance for or against them and make new proposals. A summary will be prepared based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the contributions made. On this basis, the CNNum members shall craft a global vision for each theme. This appraisal will allow the CNN-um to propose several topics to the government for a draft law.
The program is a comprehensive one … But, according to Manuel Valls and Benoît Thieulin, President of CNNum, the consultation should help to “define the kind of society we want to live in tomorrow.” Achieving these goals will depend on the success of this consultation and on the government subsequently.
Acme Billing, the US-based online retailer, faces a burgeoning phenomenon, namely, the theft of domain names. Last August, the company found out that 35 of its domain names had been stolen by an anonymous person located in China, who transferred the domain names to acquire them.
On October 21, the company filed suit in the US District court of the Eastern District of Virginia against an anonymous hacker based in China for “knowingly and intentionally access Acme Billing’s domain name management (…) without authorization.” Acme also accused the hacker of having acted in “bad faith.” To date, Acme Billing has successfully retrieved only 21 of the 35 domain names. For the other 14 domain names, it seems that the hacker has put them for sale.
Domain name theft can be particularly harmful to business, especially for an online sales company, such as Acme Billing. Clearly, by stealing domain names from an online platform, the company is deprived of the principal asset required to conduct its business. The theft of domain names can thus have grievous financial consequences for the turnover of the company, which will be directly and severely impacted. In light of this, Acme Billing’s CEO, Greg Stranahan, stated that “the theft of domain names is a growing form of intellectual property rights violation, with potentially devastating consequences for American businesses.” The decision is highly anticipated.
While the French Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) has still not ruled on the issue in France, the demands of the town of Laguiole seem to have arrived to the Court of the European Union. The town wishes to regain the use of its name. In a recent judgment[1], the European Court of Justice annulled the trademark “Laguiole” registered for cutlery by the entrepreneur Gilbert Szajner in favour of the company Forge de Laguiole.
In 2001, Szajner successfully sought registration of the Community Trademark at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). Forge de Laguiole, which markets the famous knife, subsequently obtained cancellation of the trademark by an OHIM decision on the 1st June 2011. Szajner, a businessman from Val-de-Marne without any connection to the village, brought an action against this decision before the European Court of Justice. This latter recognized “the anteriority of Forge de Laguiole which relaunched this product in 1987 and its specificity” and partially annulled the Laguiole brand.
However, the decision of the OHIM was overruled regarding the nullity of the Laguiole brand for products other than “tools and instruments hand operated”, comprising cutlery. The Court noted that even if “Forge de Laguiole was solely engaged in the cutlery industry,” he stated that Szajner could also continue to use the trademark “for products and services in other sectors.” Consequently, except for the “tools and instruments hand operated“, the entrepreneur is entitled to sell other products under the Laguiole brand.
However, for the EU the brand was partially annulled, the same cannot be said for France as the town [still] awaits the judgment of the French Supreme Court. The town of Laguiole, which alleges despoilment of its name, has waged a fierce battle against the entrepreneur for several years. The town alleged in front of the Court of Appeal of Paris that there were a deceptive commercial practice and a violation of its name, image and reputation. It was unsuccessful as the Court dismissed the case in a judgment delivered on 4th April, 2014. The town appealed. The recent decision from the European Court should rekindle the hope of the Mayor of Laguiole, Vincent Alazard.
While the Laguiole knives won their name back, the Aveyron village, renowned worldwide for cutlery, waits impatiently. The mayor seeks to recognize commercial deception, since he believes that the businessman is using the name of his town for products manufactured in Asia. Under the current law, local authorities do not have an exclusive right for the sign and can only preventively protect their names by filing a trademark registration with the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). Deauville, which protected its name in 1998, is a prime example.
Nonetheless, with the advent of the Hamon consumer protection law on 17th March 2014, local authorities can now request INPI to inform them in the event of a third party’s trademark application containing their name. They can also contest it within two months with the Director of the INPI. A town can thus exercise this application under Article L711-4-d and -h of the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle, in respect of an infringement of its name, image or reputation or in respect of a breach of a geographical indication including its name. But the decree setting out the essentials for implementation of this law is still in the works.
However, the protection offered by the novel law appears to be limited to the goals of regional communities carrying out public service as the TGI of Paris had previously held that a town “cannot, through its interest in its name, forbid companies to operate their business on its territory by using its name, unless it is shown that such use causes a likelihood of confusion with its own competences or is likely to cause prejudice to it or to its citizens.” It only remains to be seen whether the Cour de Cassation will steer towards this direction or make its decision in light of the recent European case law. This judgment is expected to defend the names of local authorities.
[1] Court of the European Union, 21 October 2014, Gilbert Szajner c/ OHMI, aff. T-453/11.
The state of Rhode Island recently passed a new law on the protection of employee privacy on social networks. The new law prohibits employers from requiring employees, during job interviews or working hours, as the case may be, to disclose the password of their social networks accounts.
This law was made necessary by increasing abuses by employers. Many require the passwords of job seekers’ social network accounts and even exert pressure to access e.g. their Facebook profile. While it is now common for employers to conduct research on candidates and gather all kind of information, they can only access so-called “public” content. By seeking passwords from candidates, employers really wished to have full access to so-called “private” content configured to be shielded from everyone’s view, and thus to more interesting information as though they were close to the individual concerned. Such private content may be e.g. pictures, messages and other personal exchanges with other members of the social network. Likewise, the new law prohibits employers from compelling employees to add them as contacts, i.e as a “friend” on Facebook, so that the latter can indirectly access the account.
However, there is an exception that allows employers to access one or more social networks account (s) of their employee in their presence provided certain conditions are met. An employee may be required to provide their username and password only when an investigation is required, i.e. where there has been an infringement of employment law rules. But the law does not specify the circumstances in which the employer can reasonably rely on this exception. Harassment, which is prohibited under employment law, comes to mind, as it can materialize through exchanges on social networks.
To date, seven states have already enacted similar laws in the United States, particularly in Illinois and Louisiana, and the trend looks set to continue. Indeed, such laws are being enacted in 28 other states. Should we expect such provisions in Europe?
The impact of Google on our society in the recent years has been a remarkable one. Indeed, the term “googling” someone or something has now carved a niche for itself in common parlance, and as such has been included in the latest edition of the Petit Larousse in France. Nonetheless, “google” is and will always be a trademark in the first place, as recently emphasized by a Court of Justice in the US.[1] Although “google” is commonly used as a verb in the US, the District Court for the State of Arizona drew attention to the fact that its primary purpose is for commercial use.
In March 2012, David Elliot and Chris Gillespie registered nearly 760 domain names, including all the term “google”, such as googledisney.com, googlebarackobama.net and googlemexicocity.com. Google Inc. first initiated private arbitration under the UDRP rules (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) where it was ordered that the domain names be transferred unto Google Inc. The appellants, David Elliot and Chris Gillespie, argued that the term “google” referred to a verb rather than to services offered by the Californian Company. As a result, they filed suit seeking no less than the annulment of the Google trademark. The latter entered a counter claim alleging trademark dilution, cybersquatting and unjust enrichment.
The Court dismissed the appellants’ contentions and found that the primary meaning of “google” cannot be a verb. The use of “google” as a verb does not remove the rights conferred upon the company of its globally known trademark. Moreover, to justify its stance, the court stated that Google primarily refers to an Internet search engine for most people. In this respect, Google is the first search engine in the United States and France. Accordingly, the District Court held that “google” could not be a generic term.
[1] Court for the District of Arizona, Elliot v. Google Inc, 10 September 2014.
The admissibility of evidence from the Archive.org website has gradually become an important debate in intellectual property and digital litigation. In disputes over trademarks, domain names, unfair competition or online counterfeiting, the ability to establish the state of a website on a given date is often a decisive factor in the outcome of the case.
Long regarded with suspicion by the French courts, the captures from Wayback Machine have seen a notable jurisprudential evolution, under the combined effect of the maturation of judicial reasoning in terms of digital evidence and the massive increase in litigation related to digital uses.
Internet Archive.org: nature and functioning
Archive.org is a foundation with the mission of preserving and archiving the memory of the web on a global scale. Through its emblematic tool, the Wayback Machine, it carries out an automated collection of freely accessible online content, allowing to consult previous versions of websites on given dates, sometimes over several decades.
The functioning of this tool is based on automated indexing and archiving processes, without systematic human intervention and outside any contradictory framework. The captures made result from periodic passages of indexing robots, whose frequency, completeness and scope are neither constant nor exhaustive. Consequently, the proposed archives do not guarantee either the total integrity of the contents displayed on a given date or the absence of subsequent modifications affecting certain elements of the site concerned.
The starting point of digital evidence in French law
In French law, the proof of legal facts is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence. In accordance with Article 9 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, it is for each party to establish the facts necessary for the success of its claims. Legal facts can thus be demonstrated by any means, including elements of a technical or digital nature.
This principle cannot, however, be interpreted as conferring an equivalent probative value on all the pleadings produced. The freedom of evidence is tempered by the sovereign power of assessment of the judge, who remains particularly attentive, in matters of digital evidence, to the reliability, integrity and authenticity of the evidence with regard to its evolving character and easy alteration.
It is in this context that the evidentiary question of the archives from Internet Archive.org fits. The captures generated by the Wayback Machine result from an automated archiving process, carried out outside any contradictory framework and without certification of the collected content. They do not, therefore, benefit from any legal presumption of reliability and are clearly distinguished from traditionally recognized forms of evidence, such as the judicial officer’s certificate, which has enhanced probative force.
The jurisprudential assessment of the admissibility of web archives
For several years, the French courts excluded the archives from Internet Archive.org, considering that they were not sufficient to guarantee neither the exhaustiveness of the archived contents nor their exact conformity with the state of the site at the invoiced date, in the absence of sufficient guarantees regarding their method of collection and conservation.
However, the case law has evolved gradually, first at the level of the courts and then at the level of the courts of appeal. Faced with the increasing difficulty of establishing the previous state of digital content, jurisdictions have started to admit these archives for information purposes, before recognizing them a more substantial probative value when they were corroborated by other elements contributed to the debates. This development reflects a pragmatic approach, based on a concrete assessment of the circumstances of the case. The French Cour de Cassation, on the other hand, has not yet ruled on this probative question.
Practical conditions of admissibility before the judicial judge
As part of this in-depth assessment, the judge examines in particular the consistency of the archives produced with the other elements of the file, the stability of the archived content over time, and the absence of serious objections to their manipulation or alteration. These criteria reflect a requirement of overall reliability of the evidence, assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case.
In contentious practice, the archives from the Wayback Machine thus gain credibility and effectiveness before the judicial courts and appellate courts when they are systematically corroborated by complementary elements. They can thus usefully be associated with:
Screenshots contemporaneous with the litigious facts or even dated commercial or advertising exchanges.
This cumulative approach makes it possible to place the web archives in a bundle of concordant clues, the only one capable of satisfying the judicial judge’s requirements regarding digital evidence.
Towards enhanced security of digital evidence: the contribution of blockchain technologies
The identified limits of traditional digital evidence modes have led to the emergence of technical solutions aimed at strengthening the reliability and traceability of produced elements in court. Among these, blockchain-based technologies occupy a growing place.
The principle is based on writing the cryptographic fingerprint (hash) of a digital content in a distributed, tamper-proof and time-stamped register. This footprint, unique in nature, varies from the slightest modification of the original file. Its registration in the blockchain thus makes any subsequent alteration detectable, giving this process strong guarantees of integrity and dating.
Unlike automated archiving systems, blockchain is based on a decentralized validation mechanism and the immutability of registered blocks. Judicial jurisdictions have started to admit evidence based on this process as serious evidentiary elements, notably to establish the anteriority and integrity of digital content, as illustrated in particular by the judgment of the judicial tribunal of Marseille (1st ch., March 20, 2025, RG n° 23/00046).
However, blockchain proof cannot be understood as an exhaustive probative solution. If it can attest to the existence of content at a given date and guarantee its integrity, it remains insufficient, on its own, to establish the ownership of rights or the identity of the author of the time-stamped content. It attests to a fact, not a right. In practice, it does not reveal either the real identity of the applicant or the conditions for creating content, except to be linked with additional identification elements.
Blockchain evidence thus finds all its relevance when it is part of a broader evidentiary framework, notably associating contractual elements, dated exchanges, findings or other consistent technical evidence.
Conclusion
The admissibility of evidence from Internet Archive.org is accepted at certain levels, but their probative value remains limited and subject to an assessment in concreto. The inherent limitations of automated archiving require, in practice, systematic corroboration by other evidence.
In this logic, the blockchain appears as a complementary probative security tool, offering reinforced guarantees in terms of dating and integrity of digital content. It cannot, however, be a substitute for the legal requirements relating to the establishment of ownership of rights, which presupposes the production of a set of coherent indices.
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.
Does the absence of a position by the French Cour de Cassation create legal insecurity?
The absence of a position from the French Cour de Cassation does not call into question the admissibility of these digital evidence elements which are partly admitted by the courts on the merits. This lack of position, however, maintains an assessment essentially in concreto, leaving variations according to the jurisdictions and circumstances of the case.
In practice, this situation does not prohibit the use of these elements, but it requires increased vigilance in the evidentiary strategy, which must be systematically corroborated in order to limit the vagaries related to the judge’s sovereign discretion.
Is the use of a bailiff’s report sufficient to permanently secure evidence from Internet Archive.org?
The bailiff’s report significantly strengthens the credibility of the evidence, but it does not transform the web archives into perfect proof. The judge retains the right to assess its scope, particularly if the method of consultation, the technical parameters or the date of the archives are contested in a serious manner.
Does digital evidence require an adaptation of traditional litigation reflexes?
Absolutely. Digital evidence requires increased anticipation, methodical collection of technical elements and rigorous articulation of the evidence. It is no longer limited to noting a fact, but requires demonstrating its stability, context and accountability.
Can a blockchain proof be disregarded for lack of sufficient technical explanation?
Yes. A blockchain proof produced without explanation about the protocol used, the hash method or the registration conditions can see its probative scope greatly reduced, or even be dismissed. The technical evidence must be intelligible to the judge in order to be usefully used.
Can a blockchain proof be combined with a bailiff’s report?
Yes, and this combination is a particularly effective practice. The bailiff’s report allows secure access to the evidence and its attachment to a party, while the blockchain reinforces the guarantees of integrity and dating of the observed content.
Under the previous IP regime in Burundi, registered trademarks were indefinitely protected without the need for any possible renewal.
With the new IP law which came into force on July 28, 2009, trademarks registered in Burundi must now be renewed once every 10 years.
The question then arose as to whether the novel requirement to renew was applicable to trademarks registered prior to July 28, 2009, when the current law was enacted.
According to the transitional provisions in the law, trademarks registered prior to the new law were not subject to mandatory renewal and remained valid indefinitely, except in instances of cancellation or expiry of the trademark.
The entry into force of the new law has clarified matters: all trademarks, including those registered under the former law shall need to be renewed for 10-year period before July 28, 2019.
It is yet to be determined as of which date it will be allowed to file application for the renewal of these old trademarks.
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 Dreyfus26/12/2014 
The French Hamon Act of March 17, 2014 on consumer law aims at increasing consumer protection by compelling businesses to provide information on every purchase through a “sustainable medium”. In one of our previous articles, we outlined that that law also aims at extending the withdrawal period from 7 to 14 days and at establishing a number of obligations in relation to the pre-contractual information provided on an e-commerce website.
