Nathalie Dreyfus

Latest developments in generative AI and copyright: An in-depth analysis

The rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the creation and use of content, raising complex questions regarding copyright. This article provides a comprehensive overview of recent legal actions and legislative initiatives related to generative AI and copyright, highlighting the challenges and opportunities that emerge in this dynamic landscape.

Recent legal actions in the United States

In the United States, several lawsuits have been initiated concerning the use of copyrighted works in training generative AI models.

Case of Kadrey v. Meta

In this class action lawsuit, authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden allege that Meta Platforms Inc. infringed their copyrights by using their books to train its AI model, LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI). On November 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed several claims, including those for direct copyright infringement based on the derivative work theory and vicarious copyright infringement. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs’ claims related to the removal of copyright management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to proceed, acknowledging that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing. Subsequently, on March 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on direct copyright infringement, arguing that Meta cannot rely on a fair use defense concerning its alleged acquisition of “millions of pirated works” used to train its model. ​

Legal proceedings against OpenAI and Microsoft

In December 2023, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their AI models were trained using the newspaper’s articles without authorization, constituting copyright infringement. This case underscores the growing tensions between content creators and AI developers regarding the use of protected works in AI training. As of March 2025, a federal judge has allowed the lawsuit to proceed, dismissing some claims but permitting the core allegations of copyright infringement to move forward. ​

International legal developments

Legal actions related to generative AI and copyright are also increasing internationally.

Legal action in France against Meta

In France, three associations representing authors and publishers—the Syndicat National de l’Édition (SNE), the Société des Gens de Lettres (SGDL), and the Syndicat National des Auteurs et des Compositeurs (SNAC)—have initiated proceedings against Meta. They allege that Meta used copyrighted works without authorization to train its generative AI model. This is the first action of its kind in France, demanding copyright enforcement and the complete removal of data repositories used for AI training.​

Legislative and regulatory initiatives

In response to these challenges, several legislative and regulatory initiatives have been proposed or implemented.

United States: Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

In April 2024, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act. This bill requires companies to disclose the copyrighted works used to train their generative AI systems by submitting a notice to the Register of Copyrights at least 30 days before the public release of a new or updated AI model. Penalties for non-compliance start at $5,000, with no maximum penalty specified.

European Union: AI Act

In the European Union, the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which was formally adopted on 13 March 2024, includes specific provisions designed to address intellectual property concerns related to generative AI.

Among its key requirements, the AI Act mandates that developers of general-purpose AI models, including generative AI systems, must provide detailed documentation on the content used for training, including information on whether the datasets contain copyright-protected material. This transparency obligation is aimed at ensuring that rights holders are aware of how their works may have been used.

Additionally, the Act introduces a duty to clearly label AI-generated content, enabling consumers and rightsholders to identify content created without direct human authorship.

These measures reflect the EU’s broader objective to strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and safeguarding intellectual property rights, especially as tensions grow between creators and developers of large-scale AI systems.

Conclusion

The intersection of generative AI and copyright law is a rapidly evolving field, marked by significant legal actions and legislative efforts worldwide. As AI technology continues to advance, it is imperative for stakeholders—including developers, content creators, and legal professionals—to stay informed and engaged with these developments to navigate the complex landscape effectively.

FAQs

What is generative AI?
Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence systems capable of creating content, such as text, images, or music, based on patterns learned from existing data.

Why is generative AI raising copyright concerns?
Generative AI models are often trained on large datasets that include copyrighted works, leading to concerns about unauthorized use and potential infringement.

What is the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act?
It is a proposed U.S. legislation requiring companies to disclose the copyrighted materials used to train their generative AI systems, aiming to increase transparency and protect creators’ rights.

How is the European Union addressing AI and copyright issues?
The EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act includes provisions for transparency in the use of copyrighted materials for AI training and mandates labeling of AI-generated content.

What should companies developing generative AI models consider regarding copyright?
Companies should ensure they have the necessary rights or licenses for the data used in training their models and stay informed about evolving legal and regulatory requirements to mitigate infringement risks.


At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in intellectual property law and are committed to assisting clients in navigating the complex intersection of AI and copyright. Our firm collaborates with a global network of attorneys specializing in intellectual property to provide comprehensive support.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys, ensuring comprehensive assistance for businesses worldwide.

Read More

The third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Objectives and future perspectives

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has necessitated the development of comprehensive frameworks to ensure their ethical and responsible use. In this context, the European Commission has introduced the third draft of the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, aiming to guide AI model providers in aligning with the stipulations of the EU AI ActRegulation (EU) 2024/1689). This article delves into the primary objectives of this draft and explores its future implications.

I – Objectives of the third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

A – Enhancing transparency

A cornerstone of the third draft is its emphasis on transparency. All providers of general-purpose AI models are mandated to disclose pertinent information about their models, including design specifications, training data sources, and intended applications. This initiative seeks to foster trust among users and stakeholders by ensuring they are well-informed about the functionalities and potential limitations of AI systems. Notably, certain open-source models are exempted from these transparency obligations, reflecting a nuanced approach to diverse AI development paradigms.

B – Addressing copyright concerns

The draft also tackles the intricate issue of copyright in AI development. Providers are required to implement measures that respect intellectual property rights, ensuring that AI models do not infringe upon existing copyrights. This includes establishing mechanisms for rights holders to report potential violations and for providers to address such claims effectively. The draft outlines that providers may refuse to act on complaints deemed “manifestly unfounded or excessive, particularly due to their repetitive nature.”

C – Ensuring safety and security

For AI models identified as posing systemic risks, the draft delineates additional commitments focused on safety and security. Providers of these advanced models are obligated to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, implement robust mitigation strategies, and establish incident reporting protocols. These measures aim to preemptively address potential threats and ensure that AI systems operate within safe and ethical boundaries.

II – Future perspectives of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice

A – Implementation challenges

As the AI landscape continues to evolve, implementing the GPAI Code of Practice presents several challenges. Providers must navigate the complexities of aligning their operations with the Code’s requirements, which may necessitate significant adjustments in their development and deployment processes. Ensuring compliance without stifling innovation will be a delicate balance to maintain.

B – Global influence and harmonization

The GPAI Code of Practice has the potential to set a global benchmark for AI governance. By establishing comprehensive guidelines, the European Commission aims to influence international standards, promoting harmonization across jurisdictions. This could lead to a more cohesive global approach to AI regulation, benefiting both providers and users worldwide.

Alongside the third draft, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs are also introducing a dedicated executive summary and an interactive website. These resources aim to facilitate stakeholder input, both through written comments and discussions within working groups and specialized workshops. The final version of the Code is expected in May, serving as a compliance framework for general-purpose AI model providers under the AI Act, while integrating cutting-edge best practices.

C – Continuous evolution and adaptation

Recognizing the rapid pace of AI advancements, the Code is designed to be adaptable. It emphasizes the need for continuous evolution, allowing for updates and refinements that reflect technological progress and emerging ethical considerations. This flexibility ensures that the Code remains relevant and effective in guiding AI development responsibly.

Conclusion

The third draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice represents a significant step toward responsible AI governance. By focusing on transparency, copyright respect, and safety, it lays a foundation for ethical AI development. As the cCde progresses toward finalization, its successful implementation will depend on collaborative efforts among stakeholders to address challenges and seize opportunities for global harmonization.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

1 – What is the AI Act?

The AI Act is a regulation proposed by the European Commission aimed at governing the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems within the European Union. It is the first comprehensive legal framework in the world dedicated to AI, designed to balance innovation and fundamental rights protection. The AI Act classifies AI systems into four risk levels: • Unacceptable risk (banned, such as social scoring systems or subliminal manipulation). • High risk (subject to strict requirements, including AI systems used in critical infrastructures, recruitment, or judicial decisions). • Limited risk (requiring transparency obligations, such as chatbots or deepfakes). • Minimal risk (with no specific obligations, such as AI-powered content recommendations). The primary objective is to ensure that AI systems deployed in the EU comply with fundamental rights, safety, and transparency while promoting responsible innovation.

2 – When will the AI Act come into force?

The AI Act was provisionally adopted in 2024 and is expected to come into force in 2025, following final approval by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. However, its implementation will be gradual: • Some immediate provisions will take effect six months after publication. • Rules for high-risk AI systems will apply starting in 2026. • Additional obligations, such as those for general-purpose AI models, may not be fully implemented until 2027. This phased approach allows businesses to adapt their operations to comply with the new regulatory framework.

3 – What is the legal framework for AI?

The legal framework for AI currently consists of a combination of European and national laws covering various aspects: 1. The AI Act (set to come into force in 2025), which will provide specific regulations for AI development and deployment. 2. The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), which governs the use of personal data—a key issue for AI systems. 3. The Product Liability Directive (Directive 85/374/EEC) and the upcoming AI Liability Directive (COM(2022) 495 final 2022/0302 (COD)), which define the responsibility of AI developers and users in case of damages. 4. Sector-specific regulations (e.g., finance, healthcare) that impose industry-specific AI compliance requirements. 5. Copyright and intellectual property laws, which impact the training datasets of generative AI models (e.g., ensuring that AI does not infringe on existing copyrights). This legal framework is constantly evolving to protect users and promote ethical AI development.

Read More

Latest developments in generative AI and copyright: An in-depth analysis

The rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the creation and use of content, raising complex questions regarding copyright. This article provides a comprehensive overview of recent legal actions and legislative initiatives related to generative AI and copyright, highlighting the challenges and opportunities that emerge in this dynamic landscape.

Recent legal actions in the United States

In the United States, several lawsuits have been initiated concerning the use of copyrighted works in training generative AI models.

Case of Kadrey v. Meta

In this class action lawsuit, authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden allege that Meta Platforms Inc. infringed their copyrights by using their books to train its AI model, LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI). On November 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed several claims, including those for direct copyright infringement based on the derivative work theory and vicarious copyright infringement. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs’ claims related to the removal of copyright management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to proceed, acknowledging that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury for Article III standing. Subsequently, on March 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on direct copyright infringement, arguing that Meta cannot rely on a fair use defense concerning its alleged acquisition of “millions of pirated works” used to train its model. ​

Legal proceedings against OpenAI and Microsoft

In December 2023, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their AI models were trained using the newspaper’s articles without authorization, constituting copyright infringement. This case underscores the growing tensions between content creators and AI developers regarding the use of protected works in AI training. As of March 2025, a federal judge has allowed the lawsuit to proceed, dismissing some claims but permitting the core allegations of copyright infringement to move forward. ​

International legal developments

Legal actions related to generative AI and copyright are also increasing internationally.

Legal action in France against Meta

In France, three associations representing authors and publishers—the Syndicat National de l’Édition (SNE), the Société des Gens de Lettres (SGDL), and the Syndicat National des Auteurs et des Compositeurs (SNAC)—have initiated proceedings against Meta. They allege that Meta used copyrighted works without authorization to train its generative AI model. This is the first action of its kind in France, demanding copyright enforcement and the complete removal of data repositories used for AI training.​

Legislative and regulatory initiatives

In response to these challenges, several legislative and regulatory initiatives have been proposed or implemented.

United States: Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

In April 2024, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act. This bill requires companies to disclose the copyrighted works used to train their generative AI systems by submitting a notice to the Register of Copyrights at least 30 days before the public release of a new or updated AI model. Penalties for non-compliance start at $5,000, with no maximum penalty specified.

European Union: AI Act

In the European Union, the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which was formally adopted on 13 March 2024, includes specific provisions designed to address intellectual property concerns related to generative AI.

Among its key requirements, the AI Act mandates that developers of general-purpose AI models, including generative AI systems, must provide detailed documentation on the content used for training, including information on whether the datasets contain copyright-protected material. This transparency obligation is aimed at ensuring that rights holders are aware of how their works may have been used.

Additionally, the Act introduces a duty to clearly label AI-generated content, enabling consumers and rightsholders to identify content created without direct human authorship.

These measures reflect the EU’s broader objective to strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and safeguarding intellectual property rights, especially as tensions grow between creators and developers of large-scale AI systems.

Conclusion

The intersection of generative AI and copyright law is a rapidly evolving field, marked by significant legal actions and legislative efforts worldwide. As AI technology continues to advance, it is imperative for stakeholders—including developers, content creators, and legal professionals—to stay informed and engaged with these developments to navigate the complex landscape effectively.

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

What is generative AI?

Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence systems capable of creating content, such as text, images, or music, based on patterns learned from existing data.

Why is generative AI raising copyright concerns?

Generative AI models are often trained on large datasets that include copyrighted works, leading to concerns about unauthorized use and potential infringement.

What is the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act?

It is a proposed U.S. legislation requiring companies to disclose the copyrighted materials used to train their generative AI systems, aiming to increase transparency and protect creators' rights.

Read More

The CJUE Neutralizes the Reciprocity Rule of Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention for Works Originating from a Non-EEE Country

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) now effectively neutralizes the reciprocity rule found in Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention for works originating from a third country outside the European Economic Area (EEE). This shift has immediate consequences for stakeholders in the fields of design and copyright, illustrating the expanding scope of EU copyright harmonization. Below, we outline the core aspects of this change, moving from the overarching principle to its practical implications in a structured manner.

Context and Legal Foundations

  • The Berne Convention and EU Law
    We observe that the Berne Convention has historically allowed signatory states to apply a principle of reciprocity to artistic and applied works from countries that did not offer equivalent protection. Recently, however, the CJUE clarified that the harmonization achieved by European directives (notably Directive 2001/29/EC) supersedes individual Member States’ prerogative to rely on reciprocity in areas that the EU has fully regulated. This decision stems from the principle that only the EU legislator may introduce exceptions or limitations once an aspect of copyright law has been harmonized across Member States.
  • Official Sources and Regulatory References
    According to the CJUE’s interpretation, Member States must refrain from applying reciprocity where EU law intends for equal treatment, irrespective of an author’s nationality or a work’s country of origin.

Key CJUE Decision of 24 October 2024

CJUE, 1re ch., 24 Oct. 2024, Aff. C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV c/ Vitra Collections AG
In its landmark ruling of 24 October 2024, the CJUE held that Member States cannot apply material reciprocity under Article 2, §7 of the Berne Convention to refuse or limit copyright protection for works of applied art originating in a non-EEE country. By doing so, the Court confirmed that only the EU legislator may decide on any limitation to economic rights granted under harmonized directives. The decision underscores the principle that national rules tied to the country of origin become inoperative where the EU has established overarching copyright norms.

Impact on Protection for Artistic and Applied Works

  • Extended Copyright for Third-Country Creations
    By neutralizing the reciprocity rule, the CJUE effectively grants works originating from countries outside the EEE a level of protection in line with EU standards, provided they meet the originality and other formal criteria under EU law. This shift primarily benefits foreign creators of designs, industrial models, and artworks who previously faced potential restrictions if their home jurisdictions did not offer reciprocal protection.
  • Reinforced Harmonization and Legal Certainty
    From a business and innovation standpoint, uniform copyright protection across the EU promotes legal certainty. Designers, manufacturers, and distributors now operate under clearer guidelines, facilitating smoother market entry and fewer obstacles linked to a work’s geographic origin.

Practical Consequences for Rights Holders

  • Easier Enforcement: Foreign authors or rights holders can assert their copyrights uniformly throughout the EU, without having to prove reciprocal treatment in their home country.
  • Encouraged Cross-Border Collaboration: Companies in the EEE may confidently license or acquire designs from third countries, knowing that these rights enjoy robust backing under EU directives.
  • Reassessment of Agreements: Existing contracts or licenses that assumed limited rights based on reciprocity might need a thorough legal review to align with the CJUE’s position.

Recommended Next Steps & Best Practices

  • Monitor Legislative Updates: Future EU legislative initiatives may further define or refine limitations.
  • Review IP Portfolios: Rights holders should ensure that new or ongoing filings for design or copyright registration reflect this updated landscape.
  • Consult Specialized Counsel: Given the complexity of international IP rights, professional guidance is indispensable to navigate cross-border transactions effectively.

The CJUE takes on profound significance for EU copyright enforcement. We advise rights holders, designers, and businesses to adapt proactively to this refined legal environment.

  • Subscribe to Our Newsletter: Stay informed about important rulings and policy shifts.
  • Follow Us on social media: Engage with our professional community for timely updates and best practices.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we stand ready to provide comprehensive legal strategies tailored to each client’s needs. Our services include advising on copyright registration and enforcement, brand and design protection, domain name portfolio management, licensing and transfer negotiations, anti-counterfeiting initiatives, and litigation support across multiple jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys, ensuring comprehensive assistance for businesses worldwide.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. Does this ruling apply to all creative works?

Yes. It covers any original work under EU copyright law, including works of applied art and design.

2. What if my home country does not protect such works at all?

Under the CJUE’s new interpretation, EU protection still applies if the work meets EU originality standards.

3. Will this affect the duration of protection?

The CJUE’s decision concerns the scope of protection, not duration. However, the EU already has specific rules on duration that Member States must respect.

 

Read More

The Protection of AI-Generated Inventions Under Patent Law

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to significant advancements in various fields, including technological innovation. AI systems are now capable of autonomously generating inventions without direct human intervention. This new reality raises a fundamental question in patent law: Can an invention generated by an AI be protected by a patent?

This complex issue is at the center of concerns for intellectual property offices and legislators worldwide, who are debating how patent law should adapt to this new form of innovation.

 Patent eligibility of AI-Generated inventions

Patentability criteria

Pursuant to the article L611-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code, to be eligible for a patent, an invention must meet three fundamental criteria:

  • Novelty: The invention must not have been disclosed to the public before the patent application was filed.
  • Inventive step: The invention must not be an obvious improvement for a person skilled in the art.
  • Industrial application: The invention must be capable of being used in industry.

When an AI generates an invention, assessing these criteria becomes more complex. The originality of the invention largely depends on the training data and algorithms used by the AI. It then becomes difficult to determine whether the invention is truly novel or merely a reformulation of existing information.

Furthermore, the inventive step requires that an invention is not an obvious outcome of prior knowledge. However, if an AI is programmed to analyze a vast corpus of technical data and propose optimized solutions, can its invention be considered as involving sufficient creative effort?

Challenges in recognizing AI as an inventor

One of the major legal obstacles concerns the attribution of inventorship. Today, most legal frameworks require the inventor to be a natural person.

The European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have rejected patent applications where an AI was designated as the inventor.

For example, in January 2020, the EPO rejected two European patent applications in which the designated inventor was an artificial intelligence system named DABUS. This decision was based on the European Patent Convention (EPC), which states that only a human being can be recognized as an inventor.

The applicant, creator of DABUS, argued that this AI, based on artificial neural networks, had autonomously conceived the inventions. However, the EPO concluded that, under the EPC, the rights attached to inventorship, such as the right to be mentioned as an inventor or to assign a patent, can only be granted to natural or legal persons. AI systems, lacking legal personality, cannot be recognized as inventors.

This case highlights the legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property.

These decisions are motivated by the fact that only humans can be legally recognized as inventors, particularly due to legal rights and liability considerations.

This stance raises a dilemma: When human intervention is minimal or nonexistent in the invention process, who should be credited as the inventor?

Some experts suggest attributing inventorship to the AI user or the entity that controls the AI, but this approach remains highly debated.

Legislative developments

International Perspectives

Given the uncertainties surrounding AI and patentability, several initiatives are underway worldwide:

  • The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has launched consultations on the impact of AI in patent law and is considering potential reforms to harmonize approaches among different countries.
  • The United States has seen the emergence of several legislative proposals aimed at clarifying the legal status of AI-generated inventions, although no major reform has been adopted so far.

In the United States, in October 2023, the White House issued an executive order aimed at ensuring the safe and reliable development of artificial intelligence (AI). In response, the USPTO published, in February 2024, guidelines on the patentability of AI-assisted inventions.

These guidelines specify that:

  • AI may contribute to an invention, but
  • Only a human who has made a significant contribution to each claim can be legally recognized as an inventor.

This position aligns with previous court decisions affirming that the inventor must be a natural person. Thus, patent applications involving AI must explicitly name individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the invention, excluding the possibility of designating the AI itself as the inventor.

This regulatory development highlights the importance of clarifying the respective roles of humans and AI systems in the innovation process, to ensure adequate legal protection for inventions in the United States.

Recent changes in patent law

Some countries have already introduced legislative changes:

  • South Africa became the first country to grant a patent to an AI-generated invention, although this remains an isolated case.
  • Australia also examined the issue, and in a decision on July 30, 2021, the Federal Court admitted this possibility (Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879).

These developments show that the recognition of AI-generated inventions is an evolving topic, and regulators will likely need to clarify their stance to address the challenges posed by AI and intellectual property.

Practical Considerations for Innovators

Strategies for Protecting AI-Generated Inventions

Businesses and innovators must anticipate legal challenges by adopting suitable strategies:

  • Ensure a human role in the invention process: A researcher or engineer should be sufficiently involved to be designated as the inventor.
  • Document every stage of creation: Keeping detailed records of how the AI operates and its role in the invention is essential.
  • Explore alternatives to patent protection: When patentability is uncertain, other forms of protection, such as trade secrets, may be considered.

Implications for Intellectual Property management

Companies must adapt their patent management strategies to the challenges posed by AI. It is advisable to:

  • Update contracts to clearly define ownership of AI-generated inventions.
  • Monitor legislative developments to anticipate possible regulatory changes.

Conclusion

The emergence of AI in innovation raises profound legal and ethical questions. Current patent law is not fully adapted to this new reality. Legislators and intellectual property offices must therefore adapt to address the challenges posed by autonomous AI-generated inventions.

Until regulatory clarifications are made, innovators must adopt proactive strategies to effectively protect their inventions and safeguard their intellectual property rights.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, patent and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

Revisions to China’s Three-Year Non-Use Trademark Revocation Procedure: What You Need to Know

In the realm of intellectual property law, China’s trademark regulations, as outlined in Article 49 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, mandate that registered trademarks be subject to cancellation if not used within a continuous three-year period. This policy aims to prevent the hoarding of trademarks and ensure that only actively utilized marks remain protected. Recent developments indicate potential changes to this revocation procedure, signaling a significant shift in China’s trademark enforcement landscape.

Current Framework of China’s Non-Use Trademark Revocation

Under the existing legal framework, a registered trademark in China may be vulnerable to cancellation if it has not been used for three consecutive years, in accordance with Article 49 of the Trademark Law. The revocation process is typically initiated through a formal request by a third party, often a competitor or interested entity, who petitions the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to cancel the inactive trademark. The trademark holder is then required to provide evidence of genuine use within the specified period to maintain their rights.

Proposed Amendments to the Revocation Procedure

Recent discussions within China’s legislative bodies suggest forthcoming amendments to the non-use revocation procedure. While specific details remain under deliberation, the proposed changes may include:

  • Extension of the Non-Use Period: Consideration of lengthening the current three-year period to a longer duration, providing trademark owners with more flexibility before facing potential cancellation.
  • Modification of Evidence Requirements: Reevaluation of the types and standards of evidence required to demonstrate genuine use, potentially streamlining the process for trademark holders.
  • Introduction of Grace Periods: Implementation of grace periods or exceptions for certain industries or circumstances, acknowledging that some sectors may require longer lead times to commence trademark use.

Implications for Trademark Holders

These proposed changes carry significant implications for both domestic and international trademark holders operating in China:

  • Strategic Planning: Trademark owners may need to reassess their portfolio strategies, considering the potential for extended non-use periods and adjusted evidence requirements.
  • Compliance and Monitoring: Enhanced vigilance in monitoring trademark use and maintaining comprehensive records will be essential to comply with any new regulations.
  • Legal Consultation: Engaging with legal experts specializing in Chinese trademark law will be crucial to navigate the evolving legal landscape and ensure continued protection of intellectual property rights.

Conclusion

As China moves towards amending its three-year non-use trademark revocation procedure, trademark holders must stay informed and proactive. Adapting to these changes will be vital in safeguarding intellectual property assets within China’s dynamic market.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists clients at all stages of trademark protection and management in China and internationally. Our services include trademark portfolio monitoring and management, preparation and submission of evidence of use, and defense in case of challenges. We also assist clients in administrative procedures before the CNIPA and provide tailored strategies to adapt to regulatory changes in the Chinese market. With our in-depth intellectual property expertise and our global network of specialized attorneys, we ensure comprehensive and customized support to secure and enhance your intangible assets.

Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. What is the current non-use period for trademark revocation in China?

Currently, a registered trademark in China can be canceled if it has not been used for three consecutive years as stipulated in Article 49 of the Trademark Law.

2. What constitutes 'genuine use' of a trademark in China?

Genuine use refers to the actual commercial use of the trademark in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered.

3. How can a trademark holder prove genuine use?

Evidence such as sales invoices, advertising materials, and product packaging displaying the trademark can be submitted to demonstrate genuine use.

Read More

Proof of Use in the United States: A Cornerstone for Trademark Protection

In the United States, the concept of “proof of use” is fundamental to the acquisition and maintenance of trademark rights. Unlike jurisdictions that recognize rights based on registration alone, U.S. trademark law requires actual use of the mark in commerce to establish and uphold these rights. This article delves into the critical role of proof of use in protecting trademarks within the U.S. legal framework.

Understanding Proof of Use

Proof of use refers to tangible evidence demonstrating that a trademark is actively used in commerce concerning the goods or services for which it is registered. This requirement ensures that the trademark serves its primary function: identifying the source of goods or services and distinguishing them from others in the marketplace.

Legal Requirements for Maintaining Trademark Registration

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) mandates specific filings to confirm ongoing use of a trademark:

  • Section 8 Declaration: Between the 5th and 6th year after registration, trademark owners must file a Section 8 Declaration, attesting to the continuous use of the mark in commerce. This filing must include:
    • A statement of use.
    • A specimen (example) showing the mark’s current use.
    • The required filing fee.
  • Section 9 Renewal Application: Every ten years, a combined Section 8 Declaration and Section 9 Renewal Application are required to maintain the registration. Failure to submit these documents can result in the cancellation of the trademark registration.

Acceptable Forms of Proof

The USPTO provides guidelines on acceptable specimens to substantiate the use of a trademark:

  • For Goods:
    • Labels or Tags: Photographs of labels or tags affixed to the products bearing the trademark.
    • Product Packaging: Images showing the mark displayed on the packaging.
    • Online Point-of-Sale Displays: Screenshots of e-commerce webpages where the product, bearing the mark, is available for purchase, including the URL and date of capture.
  • For Services:
    • Advertising Materials: Brochures, flyers, or advertisements featuring the trademark in connection with the offered services.
    • Website Pages: Screenshots of webpages describing the services rendered under the mark, with visible URL and date.

It’s imperative that the specimen clearly associates the trademark with the specific goods or services listed in the registration.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Neglecting to provide adequate proof of use can lead to severe repercussions:

  • Cancellation of Registration: The USPTO may cancel the trademark registration if the owner fails to submit the required declarations and specimens within the stipulated timeframes.
  • Legal Vulnerability: Without a valid registration, enforcing trademark rights against infringers becomes significantly more challenging, potentially leading to loss of brand exclusivity.

Best Practices for Trademark Holders

To ensure compliance and safeguard trademark rights, consider the following practices:

  • Maintain Detailed Records: Keep comprehensive documentation of how and where the trademark is used in commerce, including dated photographs, sales records, and marketing materials.
  • Monitor Deadlines: Utilize docketing systems or professional services to track and remind of critical filing deadlines to prevent inadvertent lapses.
  • Consult Professionals: Engage with intellectual property attorneys to navigate the complexities of trademark law and ensure that all proof of use submissions meet USPTO standards.

Conclusion

In the U.S., the adage “use it or lose it” aptly encapsulates the essence of trademark protection. Active and continuous use of a trademark, coupled with diligent adherence to legal requirements for proof of use, is indispensable for maintaining exclusive rights and reaping the benefits of brand recognition. By understanding and fulfilling these obligations, trademark owners can fortify their positions in the marketplace and avert potential legal pitfalls.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in intellectual property law, offering expert guidance on trademark registration and maintenance. Our global network of attorneys ensures comprehensive support for your brand protection needs. We offer specialized expertise in trademark law, ensuring that our clients comply with USPTO proof of use requirements and maintain their trademark rights in the United States. With decades of experience in intellectual property law, our firm provides tailored legal strategies for businesses navigating trademark protection challenges in the U.S. and abroad.

Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a worldwide network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. What constitutes acceptable proof of use for goods?

Acceptable proof includes labels, tags, product packaging, or online sales pages displaying the trademark directly on the product or its packaging.

2. Is advertising material sufficient proof of use for services?

Yes, for services, advertising materials such as brochures or website pages that clearly associate the trademark with the offered services are acceptable.

3. What happens if I miss the filing deadline for the Section 8 Declaration?

Missing the deadline can result in the cancellation of your trademark registration. However, the USPTO provides a six-month grace period with an additional fee.

4. Can I submit a mock-up as proof of use?

No, the USPTO requires actual evidence of the mark's use in commerce; mock-ups or prototypes are not acceptable.

5. How often must I renew my trademark registration?

After the initial Section 8 Declaration between the 5th and 6th year, renewals are required every ten years, accompanied by a combined Section

Read More

Decision of the Paris Judicial Court on the Protection of the Iconic Kelly and Birkin Bags – February 7, 2025

On February 7, 2025, the Paris Judicial Court issued a notable decision (Case No. RG 22/09210) in the dispute between Hermès International and Hermès Sellier against Blao&Co. This case raises essential questions regarding the protection of design works under French copyright law and trademark infringement. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the ruling, highlighting its implications for designers and fashion companies. 

Case Background

Hermès International and Hermès Sellier, renowned for their iconic Kelly and Birkin bags, discovered that Blao&Co had been selling handbags under the brand name “NDG” since 2021. These products, particularly the “Paisley Jane” model, were marketed through Blao&Co’s website, social media platforms, and as NFTs on OpenSea.

Claiming that these handbags reproduced the distinctive features of their protected models, Hermès sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to Blao&Co in March and April 2022, demanding the cessation of the infringing bags’ sale, as well as the associated NFTs. After receiving no satisfactory response, Hermès filed a lawsuit in July 2022 for copyright and trademark infringement.

Arguments of the Parties

Hermès’ Position

Hermès argued that Blao&Co’s “Paisley Jane” bags were an unauthorized reproduction of their Kelly and Birkin models, which are protected under copyright due to their originality. Additionally, Hermès claimed that Blao&Co unlawfully used their registered three-dimensional trademark, particularly the signature lock closure featured on their bags.

Blao&Co’s Defense

Blao&Co contested the originality of the Kelly and Birkin bags, arguing that their features were common to many handbags or dictated by technical constraints. The company also denied trademark infringement, asserting that the elements used were generic and did not infringe on Hermès’ rights.

Legal Analysis of the Court

Originality of the Kelly and Birkin Bags

The court first examined the originality of the Kelly and Birkin bags, an essential condition for copyright protection. It was established that the Kelly bag has a trapezoidal shape with side gussets, a cut-out flap, a specific closing system, a special handle, four basic studs and a removable shoulder strap. The Birkin bag, on the other hand, has a slightly rectangular shape, a flap with a three-notch cut-out, a specific closing system, two special handles, specific gussets and four basic studs. The court concluded that these features were the result of free and creative choices, giving the bags a distinctive and recognizable appearance, thus satisfying the criterion of originality required for copyright protection.

Trademark infringement

Concerning trademark infringement, the court noted that Hermès has held a three-dimensional trademark registered since 2003, covering in particular the distinctive clasp of its bags. Blao&Co’s “Paisley Jane” bags were found to reproduce this clasp in an identical or similar manner, creating a risk of confusion in the mind of the public. The court therefore concluded that Blao&Co had infringed the trademark.

Implications of the Decision

For Fashion Designers

This ruling reaffirms the importance of originality in the protection of design works under copyright law. Fashion designers are encouraged to:

  • Develop distinctive and innovative designs to ensure effective legal protection against unauthorized copies.
  • Consider registering their designs as trademarks or design rights for enhanced protection.

For Businesses

Businesses must exercise caution to ensure that their products do not infringe existing intellectual property rights. This case underscores the importance of:

  • Conducting thorough legal research before launching new products.
  • Consulting intellectual property attorneys to assess potential risks and avoid costly legal disputes.

Conclusion

The Paris Judicial Court’s decision of February 7, 2025, establishes a significant precedent in fashion design and trademark protection. It recognizes the originality of fashion creations as works protected under copyright law and reaffirms the enforcement of three-dimensional trademarks against infringement.

Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm: Your Intellectual Property Partner

The Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm assists designers, businesses, and industry professionals in defending their intellectual property rights. Specializing in trademarks, patents, and design law, our expert legal team helps protect, value, and defend your creations against infringement risks and legal disputes.

Contact us for a personalized consultation and safeguard your designs!

Dreyfus & Associates Law Firm is partnered with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property Law.

FAQ

1. What is originality in copyright law?

Originality is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection. It means that the work reflects the author's free and creative choices, giving it a unique and recognizable appearance.

2. Can handbags be protected by copyright?

Yes, provided they exhibit originality. The Paris Judicial Court confirmed that Hermès' Kelly and Birkin bags met this requirement, as their distinctive features resulted from creative choices.

3. What is the difference between a three-dimensional trademark and a design right?

A three-dimensional trademark protects a product’s distinctive shape as a commercial identifier. In contrast, a design right protects only the aesthetic appearance of a product for a limited duration.

4. How can companies avoid trademark or copyright infringement in fashion?

Companies should: • Conduct extensive IP research before launching new products. • Consult an intellectual property lawyer to evaluate potential risks.

5. What are the penalties for trademark or copyright infringement?

Penalties may include: • Product sales bans • Stock destruction • Monetary damages • Fines • In severe cases, criminal charges

 

Read More

How to protect a domain name?

In today’s digital landscape, having a strong online presence is essential for virtually every business.
The domain name is not just a technical address but rather a strategic asset and the first impression many customers get when interacting with your brand on the internet. Losing control over your domain name or failing to protect it adequately can lead to severe consequences such as lost traffic, reputational harm, or even costly legal disputes.

In this extensive guide (up to 10,000 words), we will explore all facets of domain name protection – from the relevant legal framework (covering aspects like unfair competition and trademark infringement) to practical strategies for ensuring a proactive defense (monitoring, recovering expired domains, multiple TLD registrations, etc.) and handling complex issues (UDRP, Syreli, conflicts with prior or subsequent trademarks).

Specifically, we’ll cover:

  • Why protecting a domain name is crucial;
  • Relevant legal and regulatory bases (such as article L.45 of the CPCE for .fr domains in France, the Intellectual Property Code, etc.);
  • The differences between a domain name vs. an earlier or later trademark;
  • Best practices for securing and monitoring your digital portfolio;
  • The role of unfair competition and trademark infringement actions to enforce your rights;
  • Recovering an expired or third-party-held domain name through auctions, backorders, or legal proceedings;
  • A thorough FAQ addressing key questions (e.g., “How do I prove domain name ownership?” “What are the three components of a domain name?”).

We’ll reinforce everything with practical examples and statistics (such as the number of disputes handled through the UDRP, average resolution times, etc.). Finally, we’ll illustrate how a specialized firm like Dreyfus can help ensure robust and lasting protection of your online presence.

 


1. Why Is Domain Name Protection So Critical?

In a highly competitive digital world, your domain name represents the core of your brand’s online footprint. It serves as a unique identifier for search engines and internet users. Losing control of your domain name can result in:

  • Loss of visibility: If a third party registers a confusingly similar name, it can siphon off your web traffic or create consumer confusion.
  • Reputational damage: A cybersquatter might host malicious or defamatory content under a domain that people associate with your brand.
  • Exorbitant costs: Legal or extrajudicial recoveries can be lengthy and expensive, with no guaranteed outcome.
  • Risk of legal sanction: If you accidentally infringe on someone else’s earlier trademark by using a conflicting domain, you could face a lawsuit and potential liability.

According to a Verisign study, there were about 350 million registered domain names globally (across all TLDs) by the end of 2022. Every day, over 100,000 new domains are created, while thousands expire or change registrants. In this dynamic environment, vigilance is paramount.


2.1. Article L.45 of the CPCE

In France, Article L.45 of the Code des postes et des communications électroniques (CPCE), accessible on Legifrance, grants AFNIC authority over national extensions (.fr, .re, etc.). Its guiding principles include:

  • Compliance with public order;
  • Non-infringement of third-party rights (trademarks, corporate names, etc.);
  • Transparency and non-discrimination in domain allocation;
  • An option for alternative dispute resolution methods (Syreli, PARL Expert) in case of conflict.

2.2. Intellectual Property Code (CPI)

The Intellectual Property Code (CPI) applies when a domain name conflicts with a prior IP right, such as a trademark. Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 address trademark infringement, including unauthorized use of a distinctive sign that is confusingly similar or identical to an existing trademark. A domain name can be a “distinctive sign,” so using it without permission to market similar goods/services can constitute infringement if confusion is likely.

2.3. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code (ex 1382)

When you do not have a registered trademark, you may still sue an imitator under unfair competition principles (based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code). This requires showing a fault (imitation, confusion, parasitism) plus damage and a causal link. This approach is commonly used if two domains in the same business sector cause confusion or if one party is free-riding on another’s reputation.


3. Domain Name vs. Trademark: Earlier or Later Rights

DOMAIN NAME VS. EARLIER TRADEMARK

If there is an earlier trademark (valid and registered) and you register a domain name that is identical or highly similar for related goods/services, you risk trademark infringement. Courts worldwide consistently condemn domain owners who hijack a brand’s recognition or create confusion with an established mark.

DOMAIN NAME VS. LATER TRADEMARK

Conversely, if you have been actively using a domain name for years (even without a trademark registration), and someone else later decides to file a trademark that is identical or closely similar to your domain name, you can sometimes rely on your prior usage to challenge or invalidate that later trademark. You must demonstrate substantial and continuous usage, e.g., website archives, commercial documents, etc.


4. Key Steps to Protect and Secure Your Domain Name

4.1. Prior Checks and Searches

Before registering a domain name, it’s essential to perform:

  • A WHOIS lookup to confirm availability and identify any existing owner;
  • A review of trademark databases (e.g., INPI for France, EUIPO for the EU, WIPO internationally) to avoid conflicts;
  • A check of commercial registers (e.g., Infogreffe in France) for similar corporate names.

This preliminary step reduces the risk of inadvertently infringing earlier rights.

4.2. Choosing the Right TLD

The .fr extension is pivotal in France, while .com remains a global favorite. New TLDs (nTLDs) like .tech, .shop, or .city can refine your branding strategy but be aware of cybersquatting if they aren’t also protected.

4.3. Technical and Administrative Security

Many disputes stem from negligence such as forgetting to renew a domain. We strongly recommend automatic renewal with your registrar and enabling registry lock or transfer lock. Limit domain management to trustworthy personnel so an employee can’t transfer ownership to their personal name or a competitor.

4.4. Registering a Trademark if Necessary

If your domain name is a crucial branding element, registering it as a trademark with the INPI (France) or under the Madrid system (international) significantly enhances protection. In any potential dispute, you can pursue a trademark infringement action rather than relying solely on unfair competition.


5. Unfair Competition Actions

Unfair competition is based on civil liability rules (cf. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, formerly Article 1382). It’s particularly relevant when you don’t have a trademark registration, or the mark’s scope doesn’t fully apply to the domain conflict.

5.1. Elements to Prove

  • Fault: e.g., imitation, creating confusion, or parasitism of your brand or domain;
  • Damage: lost customers, reputational harm, or traffic diversion;
  • Causation: the defendant’s conduct is the direct cause of the harm.

5.2. Illustrative Ruling

Paris High Court (TGI), January 10, 2017 (RG No. 15/07963):
The company operating exemple-luxe.com sued exempledeluxe.fr for unfair competition, alleging that the domain caused confusion among consumers. The court sided with the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to cease using the infringing domain and pay damages.

5.3. Advantages and Drawbacks

Unfair competition is flexible and doesn’t require showing a registered IP title like a trademark. However, proving actual harm (loss, confusion) can sometimes be more demanding than trademark infringement, which relies on the existence of a valid earlier mark to demonstrate a direct violation.


6. Trademark Infringement Actions

If you hold an earlier registered trademark, a trademark infringement lawsuit often provides a stronger remedy than unfair competition. You would invoke Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 of the French IP Code. Infringement requires you to prove:

  • A valid prior trademark;
  • Unauthorized use of an identical or confusingly similar sign;
  • A likelihood of confusion among the relevant public or (for famous marks) a risk of diluting the mark’s distinctiveness.

6.1. Proving Mark Existence

You need to show that your trademark is duly registered and not subject to invalidation or non-use cancellation. If the defendant challenges the trademark (arguing you haven’t used it for over five years, for instance), you may have to demonstrate genuine use to maintain your rights.

6.2. Example Ruling

Paris Court of Appeal, March 2, 2020 (RG No. 18/26345):
The domain marqueXYZ-online.com infringed the earlier trademark “MARQUEXYZ,” as it created a likelihood of confusion. The court ordered transfer of the domain and awarded damages to the trademark owner.

6.3. Scope of Application

Trademark infringement typically applies to commercial use of the domain name. If the domain is used non-commercially or in a completely different industry, confusion may be harder to establish. But for well-known (famous) marks, protection can extend to dissimilar goods/services if there is risk of tarnishment or dilution.


7. Why Monitor Your Domain Names?

Proactive monitoring of your domain(s) (or an entire domain portfolio) involves setting up alerts or scanning systems to foresee or detect:

  • Impending expiration: so you can renew in time and avoid losing the domain to a third party;
  • Cybersquatting: unscrupulous individuals may register near-identical domains (typosquatting, brandjacking);
  • Brand abuse: if new domains incorporate your brand or a misleading segment thereof;
  • Excessive resale prices: squatters may try to extort large sums if you let your domain lapse or if you need to buy it back quickly.

7.1. Services and Tools

Many registrars provide a “watch service” or specialized monitoring solutions.
You can also implement custom scripts or sign up for WHOIS alerts.
The AFNIC (the .fr registry) offers additional monitoring tools for .fr extension domains.

7.2. Recommended Practices

As part of a global strategy, consider:

  • Centralized management: using a single or limited set of registrars to keep track of all your domains.
  • Documentation: maintaining an up-to-date record (spreadsheet or dedicated software) of each domain’s expiration date, contact info, and relevant legal notes.
  • Team training: ensuring your legal department and IT staff coordinate domain naming, renewals, and brand protection effectively.

8. Recovering an Expired or Third-Party Domain Name

Losing a domain name due to non-renewal or seeing it snatched by a malicious party can be challenging, but not always irreversible. Let’s explore the different methods to recover your domain name and how to keep it safe thereafter.

What Is Domain Recovery?

Domain recovery refers to the process of regaining or reacquiring a domain name that was previously held by someone else or had expired and returned to the public pool. Recovery can take the form of:

  • Amiable negotiations: contacting the current registrant to purchase the domain directly;
  • Auctions or backorder platforms: capturing domains in redemption phase or pending delete, often competing with other potential buyers;
  • Extrajudicial proceedings (UDRP, Syreli) if the domain is used in bad faith and violates your rights;
  • Judicial actions for unfair competition or infringement, if the domain is maliciously exploiting your brand or trade name.

Practical Steps to Recover an Expired Domain

  1. Identify the domain’s current phase:
    • Grace period: the original owner may still renew;
    • Redemption period: domain is suspended but not publicly available;
    • Pending delete: domain is set to be released soon;
    • Released or auction phase: domain re-enters open registration or is up for bidding.
  2. Select your approach:
    • Backorder via specialized platforms like SnapNames, Dropcatch, etc.;
    • Participate in any auction if the registrar holds a bidding process;
    • Register the domain directly if it’s fully released to the public.
  3. Finalize acquisition:
    • Once recovered, set up DNS, verify WHOIS listing you as the registrant;
    • Enable auto-renew and domain lock to prevent losing it again.

How to Determine if a Domain Is Available for Recovery?

You can use dedicated tracking services such as Nom-domaine.fr or Domain Tools to check a domain’s actual status (active, redemption, pending delete). Some backorder services provide real-time status and will notify you once the domain is open for new registration or is in an auction phase.
In general, the domain is “available” if it is fully dropped and no longer in a grace or redemption period.

Note that popular or high-value domains can attract multiple bidders the moment they drop, so speed is essential to secure them.


9. Handling Disputes (UDRP, Syreli, Arbitration, Courts)

When a conflict arises — e.g., you believe someone else’s domain infringes your brand, or you’re accused of infringing a prior right — you have several options:

  • Extrajudicial proceedings:
    • UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy): for gTLDs like .com, .net, .org. Typically handled by ICANN-approved dispute centers such as WIPO.

      Duration: about 2–3 months.

      Outcome: transfer or cancellation of the domain if bad faith, no legitimate interest, and confusing similarity are proven.

    • Syreli or PARL Expert with AFNIC for .fr.

      Decisions often within a few weeks to a few months.

      Remedy: domain transfer or deletion if the domain violates L.45 CPCE or third-party rights.

  • Judicial options:
    • Unfair competition (Civil Code, art. 1240), if no trademark but confusion or parasitism is established;
    • Trademark infringement (CPI L.713-2, L.713-3), if you hold an earlier trademark;
    • Arbitration if a contract or prior agreement stipulates it.

According to WIPO, about 65–70% of UDRP cases result in the complainant’s favor, often leading to domain transfer. Meanwhile, AFNIC indicates that “several hundred” Syreli or PARL Expert cases occur each year for .fr, with the majority concluding in transfer or cancellation where the domain clearly infringes a prior right or is used in bad faith.


For a broader view of the phenomenon, here are a few data points:

  • Globally, about 350 million domains were registered across all TLDs by the end of 2022 (source: Verisign).
  • An estimated 3–5% of these are so-called “speculative” registrations, often used for parking, reselling, or cybersquatting (figures vary by TLD).
  • WIPO handled 5,500–6,000 UDRP domain disputes in 2022, reflecting a continuous rise year over year.
  • In the .fr space, “several hundred” Syreli/PARL Expert complaints are filed annually, mostly due to brand or trade name conflicts.

This highlights a strong momentum: disputes are increasing as digitalization expands, making anticipation and prevention the best ways to mitigate risk.


11. Comprehensive FAQ

How Do I Prove Ownership of a Domain Name?

Typically, you check the WHOIS record. The official registrant is shown there (often under “Registrant” or “Owner”). If you appear as the registrant, that is legal proof of ownership. Additionally, keep invoices, emails with your registrar, and historical screenshots to strengthen evidence in case of dispute.

How Do I Protect a Domain Name During a Conflict?

Depending on the context:

  • UDRP or Syreli extrajudicial proceedings: if you show the domain was registered in bad faith and lacks legitimate interest by the respondent, it can be transferred to you.
  • Trademark infringement action: if you own a prior mark. Courts may order cessation of use, domain transfer, and damages.
  • Unfair competition: to show confusion or parasitism under civil liability rules.
  • Amiable negotiation: sometimes buying the domain from its current holder is the fastest solution.

What Is the Validity Condition for a Domain Name?

From a technical standpoint, the domain must meet syntax and length rules. Legally, it must not violate public policy or others’ prior rights (Article L.45 CPCE). AFNIC can revoke or transfer a .fr if those conditions are breached.

What Are the 3 Components of a Domain Name?

Typically, a domain name is structured as follows:

  • Subdomain (e.g., “www” or any other custom subdomain)
  • The second-level name (e.g., “example”)
  • The TLD (e.g., “.fr,” “.com,” “.net”)

So “www.example.fr” is divided into “www” (subdomain), “example” (root), and “.fr” (extension).

What Happens If I Don’t Monitor My Domain Name?

Without regular monitoring, you could:

  • Accidentally let it expire and lose it to a competitor or cybersquatter;
  • Remain unaware of near-identical domain registrations (typosquatting, brandjacking);
  • Face stolen traffic or reputational harm;
  • Pay exorbitant fees if forced to buy it back or engage in litigation.

How Do I Know If a Domain Name Is Expired or About to Expire?

Check the WHOIS record for the domain’s expiration date. Certain services (like ExpiredDomains.net) list domains nearing expiration or in redemption. Also, many registrars provide reminders or notifications for upcoming renewals.

How Long Does a UDRP Case Typically Last?

On average, 2–3 months. WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) handles most disputes. The panel reviews the complainant’s and the respondent’s statements. Where the complainant proves bad faith and no legitimate interest, the panel typically orders transfer or cancellation of the domain.

How Many Cases Does WIPO Handle Each Year?

WIPO deals with 5,500–6,000 domain disputes annually under the UDRP. This figure has been steadily increasing, reflecting the expansion of digital commerce and domain speculation.

What If My .fr Domain Is Being Used by Someone Else?

You can:

  • File a complaint under Syreli (handled by AFNIC) or PARL Expert for a quick extrajudicial resolution.
  • Consider a court action based on unfair competition or infringement if a trademark is involved.

Procedures typically evaluate whether the domain violates L.45 CPCE or prior rights. If so, they can order a transfer or deletion.


12. Conclusion and Contact

This guide has taken you through the **complex realm** of domain name protection and recovery, covering:

  • Legal frameworks in France (CPCE, IP Code) and relevant guidelines for TLDs;
  • Practical strategies (monitoring, locks, multiple TLD coverage) to stay proactive;
  • Legal actions (unfair competition, trademark infringement), along with extrajudicial options (UDRP, Syreli);
  • Domain recovery (through auctions, backorder services, or negotiations) when a domain expires or is held by a third party;
  • Statistics illustrating how domain disputes keep rising globally.

The key is a proactive approach: verifying availability, implementing robust security measures, and staying alert via monitoring. Engaging a specialized law firm can be invaluable for drafting an effective UDRP complaint, managing a Syreli dispute, litigating in court, or generally structuring your online portfolio’s legal defenses.

Looking for customized support?
Contact Dreyfus now to safeguard your domain names effectively.
Our team provides deep expertise in domain name law, trademark law, and IP strategy, ensuring your digital assets are fully protected and your rights enforced.

Read More

Customs Surveillance in Intellectual Property Matters

In today’s globalized economy, the protection of intellectual property rights is essential for businesses seeking to safeguard their trademarks, innovations, and creative works. With the increasing flow of goods across borders, infringed products and infringements on trademarks, patents, and copyrights pose significant risks to legitimate rights holders. Customs authorities play a critical role in enforcing intellectual property rights by identifying and detaining suspected counterfeit goods before they enter the market.

This article explores the mechanisms of customs surveillance, detailing how customs detention operates, the legal frameworks supporting intellectual property protection, and the procedures for filing an Application for Action (AFA) with customs services. Understanding these processes allows businesses to enhance their anti-counterfeiting strategies and protect their intellectual assets effectively.

I – Understanding customs detention

What is Customs Detention? Customs detention is the process by which customs authorities intercept and hold goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights at a country’s border. This process prevents counterfeit goods from being imported, exported, or transshipped, reducing financial and reputational damage to rights holders and ensuring consumer safety.

Customs officials may detain goods ex officio (on their own initiative) or at the request of a rights holder who has filed an Application for Action (AFA). Once detained, the rights holder is notified and given the opportunity to examine the goods and provide evidence of infringement.

Legal basis for customs detention

In the European Union, customs detention is governed by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, which outlines procedures customs authorities must follow when seizing counterfeit or pirated goods.

Key provisions include:

  • Customs officials may intervene when they suspect an infringement of intellectual property right as trademark, patent, copyright, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models, supplementary protection certificates for medicines and plant protection products, new plant varieties, designations of origin, geographical indications and geographical denominations and design rights.
  • Goods can be detained for up to 10 working days (extendable by another 10 days in some cases) while rights holders assess the infringement.
  • If the rights holder confirms the goods are counterfeit, legal action can be pursued, including destruction of the goods.

Beyond the EU, similar regulations exist in many jurisdictions, such as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement mechanisms under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA).

II – Protection of intellectual property rights by customs authorities

Legal framework

The enforcement of intellectual property rights at borders is an international effort supported by several legal instruments, including:

Scope of protection

Customs authorities have the power to act against various types of IP infringements, such as:

  • Trademark infringements : unauthorized use of registered trademarks on counterfeit products (ex : Fake luxury handbags bearing a registered brand’s logo).
  • Patent infringements : importation of products infringing on a granted patent (ex : Unauthorized production of pharmaceutical drugs protected by a patent).
  • Design infringements : copying of registered industrial designs without authorization (ex : Knockoff furniture replicating a well-known designer’s work).

III – Filing an application for action with customs services

Eligibility and requirements

Rights holders, including individuals, companies, and trade associations, can file an Application for Action (AFA) requesting customs authorities to monitor and intercept infringing goods.

An AFA must include:

  • Proof of Ownership: Trademark or patent certificates.
  • Technical Specifications: Unique features of the authentic goods.
  • Known Infringements: Reports of prior counterfeit activity.
  • Contact Details: Representatives must be available to assist customs.

Procedure for Submission

  1. Obtain an EORI number: Required for all customs transactions.
  2. Complete the AFA form: Available through national customs portals. In France, all the information you need is available on the Customs and Excise portal.
  3. Submit electronically: Via the IP Enforcement Portal (IPEP).
  4. Approval & implementation: Customs reviews the application, and if accepted, begins monitoring for infringements.

Duration and renewal

  • An AFA is valid for one year and must be renewed annually.
  • Renewal requires updated information on counterfeit risks and authorized suppliers.

IV – Best Practices for Enhancing Customs monitoring

To maximize customs intervention effectiveness, rights holders should:

  • Conduct regular IP audits: Ensure all trademarks and patents are up to date.
  • Train customs officials: Provide guides and images to help identify counterfeits.
  • Monitor supply chains: Collaborate with customs to track high-risk shipments.
  • Use technology: Employ blockchain and AI-based tracking for better enforcement.

Conclusion

Customs monitoring is a vital tool for protecting intellectual property rights from counterfeiting and piracy. By proactively filing an AFA, businesses can leverage customs enforcement to block the import and export of infringing goods, safeguarding their brands and innovations.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, our team of intellectual property experts is dedicated to guiding businesses through the customs enforcement process. We provide tailored support for filing AFAs, monitoring customs interventions, and enforcing rights against counterfeiters. Our global network of IP attorneys ensures comprehensive protection in multiple jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of IP attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

1 – What are the three main missions of customs?

Customs have three primary missions: • A fiscal mission: Customs collect and monitor duties, import VAT, and excise taxes, contributing to the national and European Union budget. • An economic mission: Customs facilitate and secure trade by enforcing import and export regulations while ensuring fair competition and economic competitiveness. • A protection mission: Customs combat fraud, protect consumers, and ensure national security by inspecting dangerous, prohibited, or counterfeit goods.

2 – How can intellectual property rights be protected?

The protection of intellectual property (IP) rights involves several key steps: • Registering rights: Filing a trademark, patent, or design with the appropriate offices (INPI, EUIPO, WIPO) grants exclusive rights to the owner. • Market monitoring: Implementing surveillance strategies to detect counterfeits both online and offline. • Customs enforcement: Filing an application for action with customs authorities allows them to seize suspected counterfeit goods. • Legal actions: In case of infringement, right holders can initiate legal proceedings, including seizure of counterfeit goods and civil or criminal lawsuits.

3 – What tools are available to protect intellectual property?

Several tools help reinforce IP protection: • Customs Application for Action (AFA – Action in Favor of Right Holders): This procedure enables IP owners to notify customs about suspicious goods and facilitate counterfeit seizures. • Online monitoring platforms: Various tools help identify counterfeit products sold on marketplaces and social media. • Training and awareness programs: Right holders can collaborate with customs to train officers in detecting counterfeit goods. • Cooperation with authorities: Agreements between IP owners, customs, and law enforcement enhance the fight against counterfeiting.

4 – What is the role of customs in the fight against infringement?

Customs play a crucial role in combating counterfeiting by enforcing border controls and intercepting illicit goods: • Goods inspections: Customs officers check imports and exports to identify suspicious products. • Seizures of counterfeit goods: When counterfeits are detected, customs can seize and destroy the illicit merchandise. • Collaboration with rights holders: Businesses and trademark owners can report counterfeit products to customs through the application for action process. • Awareness campaigns: Customs regularly conduct information campaigns to educate consumers and businesses about the risks of counterfeit products. Customs are a key player in intellectual property protection, working alongside businesses and authorities to secure markets and combat fraud.

Read More