The 100 pioneer domain names of .PARIS have been revealed on last 21st February, but this is just a stage in the project of this new gTLD.
Firstly, it is important to note the 100 pioneers will be able to benefit from an address with .PARIS as from May 2014 during an exclusive period of 6 months whereas other domain names will be visible and accessible for sale only by the end of the year for the general opening.
Moreover, a Sunrise Period of 3 months will be opened for trademark owners as from the month of September 2014. The domain names reserved during this period will be allocated and available online only at its termination.
The new domain names are classified in various categories: Ambassadors (7), Business (8), Ecosystem and Individual Parisians (78), and Namespace Mandate (5). These will be granted to registrants for 3 to 5 years and they are:
livraisons-restaurant.paris: Service connecting restaurateur making deliveries with clients,
m.paris: Service allowing creation of an address like mon.adresse@m.paris,
accessibilite.paris: Service of referencing accessible locations and equipment irrespective of the disability,
reservation-hotels.paris: Service of hotel reservations in Paris approved by the Office of Tourism, and
bandb.paris: Service of room reservations in guesthouses
In fact, there are 98 domain names out of which two have been reserved by the City of Paris for the general opening.
The City of Paris also proposes a procedure to oppose to pioneer names before the 21st March 2014. The request can be presented by any person providing evidence of its interest to act on absence of the Pioneer’s legitimate interest and on his bad faith.
The economic contributions of pioneers amount to 416 000 € in addition to the contribution in kind (for e.g. marketing communications aiming at enhancing the notoriety of the candidate’s project and the .paris project).
Find the list of the domain names in the press release of the City of Paris here.
Our consulting firm is at your disposition to advise you on the forthcoming Sunrise period.
Long viewed as a safeguard against economic espionage and unfair competition, trade secrets now occupy a more complex place within European Union law. By harmonising their protection, the EU has sought to secure undertakings’ know-how, innovation and strategic commercial information. Yet this protection can no longer be considered in isolation. It must now be reconciled with European requirements relating to transparency, the regulated circulation of data, innovation and the protection of the public interest.
From the Europe 2020 strategy to the trade secrets directive: the construction of a common framework
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of June 8, 2016 was adopted in response to the need to harmonise a previously fragmented system of trade secret protection across the European Union. Prior to its adoption, confidential information was protected in varying ways across Member States, either through specific rules or under general principles of civil liability, unfair competition, employment law, criminal law or contract law.
The Directive now establishes a common definition of a trade secret. Information may be protected where it :
is secret;
has commercial value and;
its lawful holder has taken reasonable steps to keep it confidential.
This definition requires undertakings to adopt an active approach: it is not sufficient merely to describe information as confidential; the undertaking must also be able to demonstrate its strategic value and the measures implemented to protect it.
The Directive also harmonises unlawful conduct, such as the unauthorised acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret, as well as the principal civil remedies available to bring the infringement to an end and obtain compensation. It nevertheless establishes only a minimum framework: procedural rules, the taking of evidence and the assessment of damages may still vary from one Member State to another.
How has France transposed the European trade secrets regime?
Law No. 2018-670 of July 30, 2018 transposed the Directive into French law by introducing, into the French Commercial Code, a specific regime for the protection of trade secrets.
Article L.151-1 of the French Commercial Code incorporates the three European criteria listed above. Protection is therefore not automatic: the undertaking must be able to demonstrate that it has identified its sensitive information and implemented concrete measures to preserve its confidentiality.
This regime is, however, balanced by a number of exceptions. Trade secrets may not, in particular, be invoked to obstruct freedom of expression and information, the good-faith disclosure of unlawful conduct, or the protection of a legitimate interest recognised by law. The regime therefore protects the strategic information of undertakings without establishing a general right to opacity.
Protection now interacting with new European regimes on transparency and access to data
Since the transposition of the Directive, the legal foundation has remained unchanged. However, trade secrets now operate within a broader regulatory environment, marked by the development of European instruments relating to whistleblower protection, data governance, access to data and artificial intelligence.
The 2019 whistleblower directive: trade secrets must not override the public interest
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of October 23, 2019, does not call into question the protection of trade secrets. Rather, it strengthens the protection of persons who report certain breaches of Union law. It thus confirms that business confidentiality must be reconciled with the protection of the public interest.
This Directive also helps to clarify the limits of the enforceability of trade secrets where disclosure takes place within a protected whistleblowing framework. For undertakings, this interaction requires more sophisticated governance. It is no longer sufficient to reinforce confidentiality clauses. Undertakings must also implement reporting channels, reliable internal procedures and a compliance culture capable of distinguishing the legitimate protection of secrecy from the abusive use of confidentiality.
The Data Governance Act: towards a regulated circulation of data
In this approach trade secrets are no longer analysed solely as a barrier to access but they become an element to be integrated into mechanisms of governance, control and secure sharing. The European Union does not seek to oppose confidentiality and innovation; it rather seeks to construct a model in which data may circulate without destroying the value of protected information.
The Data Act: a new point of tension between access to data and trade secrets
Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of December 13, 2023, also known as the Data Act, represents an even clearer development. It organises, in certain circumstances, access to data generated by the use of connected products and related services, including protected data held by public sector entities, while providing safeguards where such data contain trade secrets.
Undertakings must therefore identify sensitive information in advance, provide for confidentiality undertakings and document the risks associated with its disclosure.
The AI Act: transparency in artificial intelligence and the protection of confidential information
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of June 13, 2024, on artificial intelligence, known as the AI Act, adds a further dimension. For certain artificial intelligence systems, it imposes obligations relating to documentation, transparency, risk management and compliance. These obligations may entail the production or communication of sensitive technical information potentially covered by trade secret protection.
The AI Act does not remove the protection afforded to trade secrets. It rather requires that such protection be reconciled with the requirements of transparency, security, documentation and oversight applicable to certain artificial intelligence systems.
Conclusion
The European Union has established a common foundation for the protection of trade secrets, without achieving full uniformity, as Member States retain a certain margin of discretion. Today, this protection has not been replaced, but must be articulated with new European instruments relating to whistleblowing, data governance, access to data and artificial intelligence.
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.
1. What is the difference between a trade secret and a confidentiality clause?
A confidentiality clause is a contractual instrument. It requires a person or undertaking not to disclose certain information. A trade secret, by contrast, is a statutory protection regime. The two may complement each other: a properly drafted confidentiality clause may help demonstrate that an undertaking has taken reasonable steps to protect the information.
2. Is information simply marked “confidential” automatically protected?
No. Marking information as “confidential” is useful, but it is not sufficient in itself. The undertaking must be able to demonstrate that the three criteria for trade secret protection are met: the secrecy of the information, its commercial value and the existence of reasonable protective measures. Such marking is therefore an indication, not an absolute guarantee.
3. Can an idea be protected as a trade secret?
Yes, but only if it is sufficiently concrete and confidential. A general or abstract idea is difficult to protect. By contrast, a structured method, a technically documented concept, a development plan or a precise commercial strategy may fall within the scope of trade secret protection if the legal conditions are satisfied.
4. Does trade secret protection replace patent protection?
No. A patent grants an exclusive right in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention. Trade secret protection, by contrast, is based on confidentiality. An undertaking may choose not to patent an innovation in order to avoid disclosing it, but it must then be capable of effectively maintaining secrecy. The choice between patent protection and trade secret protection therefore depends on the nature of the innovation, its expected lifespan, the risk of copying and the undertaking’s commercial strategy.
5. Can trade secrets be enforced against a former commercial partner?
Yes, where that partner obtained the information within a limited contractual framework and subsequently uses it without authorisation. This is why partnership, service, distribution, research and negotiation agreements must precisely define the information transmitted, the authorised use of that information, the duration of protection and the consequences of any disclosure.
The purpose of this publication is to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to particular situations or to constitute legal advice.
By an application of Swiss law, a WIPO expert has made an innovative decision by requiring the transfer of a domain name pointing to an inactive website (DCH2012-0021 Cash Converters Pty Ltd. against Mr. Botana Adolfo Miguel Rojo).
In the Expert’s opinion, the fact that the website attached to the litigious domain name has not yet been activated does not diminish the risk of confusion. Its registration could indeed presuppose imminent activation, which could lead to a preventive action for counterfeiting in accordance with the article 55. litt (a) of the Swiss Trademark Act.
Moreover, even if he does not apply these dispositions, the Expert notes that the Swiss Unfair Competition Act could be applicable to this kind of situation. Indeed, article 2 of this law asserts that is “unfair and unlawful to allow any conduct or any commercial practice which is misleading or which infringes the rules of the principles of good faith and affects relations between competitors or between suppliers and customers“.
However, it seems that there may be a difference between inactive domain names which are identical to a registered trademark and those which are only similar. While the first category can effectively obstruct the commercial development of a competitor by preventing the latter from offering goods and services via a domain name which reflects its own trademark, this is not the case in the second category.
In France, the Courts have made a very different ruling. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions since the Locatour decision (Commercial Division, December 13, 2005) that a domain name must be active before infringement can be recognized, unless in the case of a well-known brand (TGI Paris 3rd, 3rd Sec, October 29, 2010, Free c / Osmozis).
As for the UDRP process is concerned, the Experts are divided. If some adamantly refuse to consider that an inactive domain name may infringe a trademark right, others consider that it is appropriate to take all the elements into account to assess possible infringement, including public awareness of the brand.
This week, the Sunrise periods for the new gTLDs .DOMAINS, .LIMO and .CAB will end, but other strings are coming such as the .BLUE, the .WED, or the .移动 which means “mobile” in Chinese.
The Indonesian registry has recently made second-level domain names available. A Sunrise period for Indonesian trademark owners is already opened since January 20th and will run until April 17th, 2014. It will be followed by a Grandfather period where third-level domain names owners (.CO.ID or .WEB.ID) will be able to claim their corresponding .ID names.
We remind you that a Trademark registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse along with the corresponding SMD file is required to register a domain name during a Sunrise period.
On November 26, 2013, the town of Paris has launched a pioneer program. It revealed the first 100 domain names bearing the extension .PARIS on February 21, 2014.
The candidates for the new extension have been chosen according to their editorial project. Businesses, associations or even bloggers could submit their applications. The Paris City Hall has announced its intention to acquire a strong digital identity and to make the town become a digital territory conducive to innovation.
Among the lucky winners, the town has selected the RATP which has acquired the domain name <metro.paris> and which intends to display a “revolutionary” map of Paris transports on its website. The inevitable <toureiffel.paris>, the Grand Palais or the Fauchon grocery will also aim at improving the virtual image of the town.
“This extension reflects innovation in Paris, and has a symbolic value, where we are opening a new cycle”, said Jean-Louis Missika, deputy mayor of Paris in charge of innovation who chaired the Jury responsible for the screening of the 310 applications. And, during his visit to Paris, the chairman of ICANN, Fadi Chehadé, added: «I am pleased to see the energy deployed by the town of Paris. This achievement must be a model for all the towns around the world”.
The first websites using the extension .PARIS will be accessible in Spring and will be available to the general public at the end of this year. The list of the 100 pioneer domain names is available on the website of the town of Paris.
The .GURU is available to the general public since February 5 2014.
This extension, intended for gurus of all kinds, is at the forefront and still breaks records among the new gTLDs. Indeed, according to the website registrarstats.com, the number of domain names registered in .GURU stands today at 39139 names!
For comparison purposes, here is the list of the first 10 new extensions classified according to the number of registrations:
GURU
39139
PHOTOGRAPHY
23488
TODAY
10308
TIPS
8019
TECHNOLOGY
7951
BIKE
7915
CLOTHING
7803
DIRECTORY
6906
GALLERY
6804
LAND
6356
Some names are already on sale. On sedo.fr, the website for the purchase/sale of domains, the names are available as from 45GBP and the offers are up to nearly 20000 USD, but there are also many names for which we can propose an offer.
Our firm is available to register your domain names in .GURU or in any other extension.
WHOIS databases are particularly useful for finding information on domain name holders. Their name (who is) clearly indicates their purpose, which is to provide essential information about protagonists with regards to a domain name and especially concerning the name reservation date, the registrant, the administrative contact details or the registry office of the domain name. In summary, WHOIS is the database of domain names registered with a registrar or a registry.
In application of the Affirmative of Commitment (AoC) of 30 September 2009, ICANN is responsible for implementing existing policy regarding the WHOIS, under the auspices of applicable legislation. To this effect, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), a contract by which ICANN accredits a registry office, outlines their obligations, especially concerning the accuracy of WHOIS data. The latest accreditation contract, the RAA 2013, came into effect on 1st January 2014. The registry office is required to take all reasonable measures in the event that inaccuracies within the WHOIS database are notified by “any parties”.
The present WHOIS service has a number of weaknesses and needs to be reformed to adapt to the digital world and e-commerce in particular. An Expert Working Group was formed by ICANN in 2013 to examine the registration service for gTLDs. The aim is to replace the current service with another, the Aggregated Registration Data Service (ARDS), by which the data would only be collected, validated and shared for authorized purposes such as spot checks, domain name research or to protect personal data. In addition, only certain data would be available to authorized enquirers who would be held accountable for its use.
Currently this project has not been finalized since questions remain outstanding relating to costs and implications. The Group is awaiting community feedback on their initial proposals before going further. And already a number of contentious issues have been raised…the project will need time to be developed and adapted before being launched.
Online harassment has developed from the web 2.0 as well as from the advent of the social networks, thus differentiating from physical harassment.
In “The 51%”, Nathalie Dreyfus relates on the particularities of virtual harassment and the means to solve it with Olivia Salazar-Winspread. Harassment suffered by woman is alarming. However, procedures currently set up by social networks are inadequate and unclear. Changes are afoot, but will not be instantaneous.
The broadcasts of the programme are scheduled as follows:
On 14 May 2013, the German Federal Court of Justice found the search engine Google guilty on the grounds that the autocomplete function that reflects the search activity of web users can be detrimental to individuals and companies. Indeed, when a user enters a term in the search bar, a series of key words are presented to him in the form of predictions, which can sometimes have negative connotations.
In the case at hand, a German company and its director sued Google, claiming infringement of their personality rights when their names were associated to the terms “fraud” and “scientology”. They thus sought compensation as well as the removal of such predictions.
The Court of Appeal of Cologne did not side with the company and its founder. It considered that the average user understands that predictions are the outcome of Google’s algorithm-based software process.
The German Federal Court of Justice however, took a different stand and considered that there was an infringement of personality rights due to the negative connotation attached to such an association. Based on this, the Court held Google to be liable and requested that the related predictions be removed as they did not bear any relevance to reality.
Google will thus be liable in Germany as soon as infringement is communicated by a plaintiff and no measures are taken by the search engine to prevent such happenings. Thus, the cancelation of Google’s autocomplete function is not required by the Court. There is no obligation to monitor predictions for infringements of personality rights.
The stand of the German Federal Court of Justice requires the search engine to set up a monitoring and evaluation procedure in order to remove all predictions infringing personality rights. One can envision the difficulties that such a task would entail.
A harmonization of European case-law on the autocomplete function will most likely not be achieved (Cass. 1st civ 19 February 2013, TGI Paris 23 October 2013) until a decision of the European Court of Justice.
Applications to register the trademarks “distinctive flavor of peppermint” and “a peppermint scent” for a nitroglycerine spray have recently been rejected by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO). In the event, the TTAB highlighted the fact that the peppermint substance comprises a functional matter of the product and that the applicant had provided no proof as to the distinctive nature of the trademarks.
Peppermint as a functional characteristic of the product
The examiner held that peppermint has an exclusively functional characteristic within the product and is not a distinctive sign that could qualify it as a trademark. To clarify this “functional” notion, reference was made to the US Supreme Court case of Inwood Laboratories, INC v Ives Laboratories, INC in 1982 in which it was ruled that a characteristic of a product is “functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article”.
In this case, the defendant argued that it is an inactive ingredient of the medication that has no therapeutic properties. Thereby, according to him, it could not be considered to have a functional characteristic.
However, the examining attorney demonstrated by producing the description of an American patent granted for a nitroglycerine spray that the use of menthol improved the medicine’s effectiveness and limits its side effects.
The peppermint is therefore not superfluous but a truly useful ingredient of the medication.
The distinctive character
Distinctive character is an essential condition for obtaining a trademark. The mark must not only enable customers to distinguish the product from those of its competitors, but it must also be sufficiently different from the product or service designated.
The examining attorney stated that the use of peppermint in a nitroglycerine spray by the Company is not exclusive because it is also used in other sprays. He also underlined that aromas and scents have never intrinsically been of a distinctive nature and that therefore the applicant must demonstrate how this scent could fulfill the requirements of a trademark.
In the event, the applicant had provided no convincing proof as to the distinctiveness of the trademark.
Our site uses cookies to offer you the best service and to produce statistics, and measure the website's audience. You can change your preferences at any time by clicking on the "Customise my choices" section.
When browsing the Website, Internet users leave digital traces. This information is collected by a connection indicator called "cookie".
Dreyfus uses cookies for statistical analysis purposes to offer you the best experience on its Website.
In compliance with the applicable regulations and with your prior consent, Dreyfus may collect information relating to your terminal or the networks from which you access the Website.
The cookies associated with our Website are intended to store only information relating to your navigation on the Website. This information can be directly read or modified during your subsequent visits and searches on the Website.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Dreyfus is concerned about protecting your privacy and the Personal Data ("Data"; "Personal Data") it collects and processes for you.
Hence, Dreyfus complies every day with the European Union legislation regarding Data protection and particularly the European General Data Protection Regulation Number 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 (GDPR).
This Privacy Policy is aimed at informing you clearly and comprehensively about how Dreyfus, as Data Controller, collects and uses your Personal Data. In addition, the purpose of this Policy is to inform you about the means at your disposal to control this use and exercise your rights related to the said processing, collection and use of your Personal Data.
This Privacy Policy describes how Dreyfus collects and processes your Personal Data. The collection happens when you visit our Website, when you exchange with Dreyfus by e-mail or post, when exercising our Intellectual Property Attorney and representative roles, when we interact with our clients and fellow practitioners, or on any other occasion when you provide your Personal Data to Dreyfus, in particular when you register for our professional events.
Written by Nathalie Dreyfus06/03/2014 
The 100 pioneer domain names of .PARIS have been revealed on last 21st February, but this is just a stage in the project of this new gTLD.
