Nathalie Dreyfus

Introduction

The “.fr” domain name is experiencing a significant resurgence, driven by growing concerns around digital sovereignty, trust, and the control of intangible assets. Long overshadowed by generic extensions, it is now emerging as a strategic choice for French companies seeking to secure their online presence.

Supported by a structured legal framework, national governance, and effective enforcement mechanisms, the “.fr” provides a reliable and protective environment.

“.fr” as a symbol of renewed digital sovereignty

A national extension with strategic importance

The “.fr”, France’s historical extension, is now part of a broader movement toward reclaiming control over digital infrastructure. This shift is driven by:

• Increasing dependence on international platforms
• Risks of unilateral changes in access or visibility rules
• Exposure to foreign jurisdictions

The domain name thus becomes a strategic and autonomous asset, largely independent from the constraints imposed by global tech players.

A stronger perception of reliability and proximity

The “.fr” benefits from a decisive advantage in that it is immediately identifiable as a local, reliable, and secure extension.

This perception is based, on the one hand, on its strong territorial anchoring, which allows users to naturally associate the website with an entity established in France, and, on the other hand, on its compliance with French and European regulatory frameworks, particularly regarding data protection and transparency.

In addition, it offers greater clarity for consumers, who can more easily identify the origin of the service, thereby reinforcing trust and user engagement.

Widespread adoption by French businesses

Recent figures reflect a clear shift: nearly two-thirds of SMEs now prioritize the “.fr”, compared to about one-third for “.com”. This trend highlights :

• A growing strategic awareness
• A desire to reduce dependence on foreign actors
• An increased need for credibility with customers

The “.fr” is therefore becoming a national standard of trust, moving beyond its former role as a secondary extension.

A protective legal framework strengthened by effective mechanisms

Syreli: a fast and efficient procedure

The Syreli procedure, implemented by AFNIC, enables efficient challenges against “.fr” domain names. It is characterized by:

• A short timeframe (around two months)
• A fully online process
• Controlled costs

It is particularly effective in addressing clear cases of rights infringement.

PARL EXPERT: a more in-depth expert approach

The Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure (PARL EXPERT) relies on independent experts and is suited to more complex disputes involving:

• Detailed legal analysis
• Consideration of economic stakes
• Greater procedural flexibility

To learn more about domain name disputes, we invite you to consult our previously published guide.

Case law offering stronger protection for rights holders

The trends observed in Syreli and PARL EXPERT proceedings, as highlighted in AFNIC’s annual reports, reflect stronger protection for rights holders. A review of the decisions issued shows a growing consistency in the application of these principles, pointing to the gradual consolidation of the legal framework governing “.fr” domain names.

First, acts of cybersquatting are being sanctioned more and more systematically where there is a likelihood of confusion, unfair exploitation of reputation, or evidence of bad faith. Bad faith is assessed on the basis of specific indicators, such as the registrant’s passivity or the redirection of the domain name to competing content.

Second, protection is no longer limited to the mere reproduction of a registered trademark. Decisions now reflect a broader approach to prior rights, extending in particular to company names, provided that a likelihood of confusion is established.

Lastly, AFNIC’s figures confirm the operational effectiveness of these dispute-resolution mechanisms. Since its creation in 2011, more than 3,000 Syreli decisions have been issued, with an increase of over 75% between 2012 and 2024. In 2024, nearly 87% of decisions resulted in the transfer of the domain name to the claimant, illustrating the concrete effectiveness of the system for the benefit of rights holders.

In this context, the “.fr” stands out as a structured, responsive, and protective legal framework, meeting companies’ needs in securing their digital identity.

“.fr” as a response to changes in the web and the rise of AI

Digital visibility reshaped by new online uses

Changes in online practices, particularly with the development of generative AI, are altering the way internet users access information by reducing the direct visibility of domain names within browsing paths.

Without eliminating their role, this development creates a risk of reduced visibility for traditional websites, to the benefit of intermediary interfaces such as search engines, assistants, and platforms.

Even so, domain names remain essential: they constitute the primary source of the content used by artificial intelligence systems.

In this context, domain names continue to serve an important function as a point of identification, credibility, and long-term anchoring for businesses.

“.fr” as a guarantee of digital resilience

In response to these changes, the “.fr” offers:

• Legal stability
• Strategic independence
• Greater resilience in the face of technological developments

It is becoming an essential tool for businesses seeking to secure their visibility and digital identity.

Domain name monitoring: an essential reflex

In this context, merely owning a domain name is no longer enough. Proactive domain name monitoring has become a natural extension of digital sovereignty.

The renewal of the agreement between AFNIC and INPI, aimed at raising entrepreneurs’ awareness of the importance of protecting their intangible assets from the outset through the combined registration of a trademark and a domain name, confirms this direction. It encourages rights holders to implement proactive monitoring in order to detect fraudulent registrations quickly and to activate the appropriate procedures without delay.

Such vigilance makes it possible to:

• Promptly identify infringements affecting trademarks and domain names
• Anticipate cybersquatting practices
• Secure digital identity over the long term

Monitoring therefore forms part of a broader strategy for protecting intangible assets, which is essential to preserving a company’s value and credibility in an ever-evolving digital environment.

Conclusion

The “.fr” has evolved beyond its purely technical function to become a genuine instrument of digital sovereignty, combining trust, legal certainty, and strategic autonomy. Its increasing adoption by French companies reflects a deeper transformation in digital practices, with a growing emphasis on control, security, and the protection of intangible assets.

In a landscape shaped by technological developments and the rise of artificial intelligence, the “.fr” remains a structuring asset, ensuring credibility, visibility, and long-term stability, while fully integrating into a comprehensive intellectual property strategy.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Who can register a “.fr” domain name?
Any individual or legal entity may register a “.fr” domain name, provided they reside or are established within the European Union.

2. Is “.fr” suitable for international strategies?
Yes, it can complement other extensions while strengthening local presence and brand security.

3. How can a “.fr” domain name be effectively protected?
By registering strategic variants, securing trademark rights, monitoring registrations, and acting quickly via Syreli or PARL when needed.

4. How can domain names be monitored?
Through specialized monitoring services that detect potentially infringing registrations.

5. What is the difference between UDRP and Syreli?
UDRP applies mainly to generic domains (.com), while Syreli is specific to “.fr” and generally faster.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The priority rule in  trademark law is a fundamental mechanism within the international trademark protection system. It allows an applicant who has filed a first trademark application in one country to claim that filing date for a subsequent application in another territory, particularly for a European Union trademark (EUTM).

This mechanism enables applicants to obtain retroactive protection, preventing third parties from acquiring rights between two successive filings. However, recent case law from the General Court of the European Union reminds us that this rule must be applied strictly.

The Coloratura ruling (Capella v EUIPO, General Court of the European Union, 8 October 2025, T-562/24) is a particularly significant decision in this regard. It clarifies the limits of the concept of the “first application” and reiterates that the priority system cannot be used to artificially extend trademark protection.

The priority rule in trademark law: definition and legal framework

The right of priority originates from the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which enables applicants to organize the international expansion of their trademarks.

Under this principle, anyone who has filed a trademark application in a Convention member state benefits from a six-month period to file the same trademark in other countries while retaining the date of the first filing. This mechanism facilitates the international protection of trademarks while giving trademark owners time to evaluate their expansion strategy.

Within the European Union, this right is governed by Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trademark. This provision allows applicants to claim the priority of an earlier application when filing a European Union trademark application before the EUIPO.

Where priority is validly claimed, the EU trademark is deemed to have been filed on the date of the first national filing. Consequently, any application filed by a competitor during that period becomes legally ineffective against the earlier rights.

Legal conditions for claiming priority in trademark law

Claiming priority is subject to several cumulative conditions :

• First, the trademark claiming priority must be strictly identical to the trademark filed in the initial application. Any substantial modification may result in the loss of priority.
• Second, priority applies only to the goods or services covered by the first application. If the subsequent application includes additional goods or services, those additional elements will not benefit from priority.
• Third, the deadline to file a trademark under priority is strictly limited to six months. In principle, this period cannot be extended, which requires careful strategic planning when organizing international trademark filings.
• Finally, the applicant must provide supporting documentation, including a certified copy of the first application and, where necessary, a translation. These documents enable the EUIPO to verify the validity of the priority claim.

The Coloratura ruling: a major clarification of the concept of “first application”

Background of the case

The Coloratura case has become an important reference for interpreting the priority rule in EU trademark law.

In this case, the company Capella filed several German national trademark applications for the trademark “Coloratura” between February and September 2017. It subsequently filed an EU trademark application on March 30, 2018, claiming priority from a German application filed in September 2017.

However, in the meantime, Richemont had filed a similar trademark in Germany on March 9, 2018 and filed an opposition against Capella’s EU trademark application.

This issue was decisive in the pending opposition proceedings, since recognition of that priority claim would have enabled Capella to rely on a filing date earlier than that of the trademark relied upon by Richemont and, accordingly, to defeat the earlier right asserted in opposition. Capella therefore maintained that priority could validly be claimed on the basis of that September 2017 application, whereas Richemont argued that the true first application was in fact the one filed in February 2017.The decision of the General Court of the European Union

The General Court confirmed the analysis of the EUIPO. According to the Court, the application filed in February 2017 had to be regarded as the true first application to be taken into account for the purpose of claiming priority, as it had been published and had produced legal effects.

The Court emphasized that accepting Capella’s argument would allow applicants to extend the priority period indefinitely by repeatedly filing new applications, with each new filing triggering a fresh six-month priority period. Such a practice would undermine the purpose of the priority system, which seeks to balance the protection of applicants with legal certainty and fair competition.

Nevertheless, the Court recalled that in very limited circumstances a later application may exceptionally be considered the “first application”, as provided for in Article 34(4) of the EU Trademark Regulation, which establishes a narrow exception to the general rule.

For this exception to apply, several strict cumulative conditions must be satisfied:

• the earlier application must have been withdrawn, abandoned, or refused;
• it must not have been made available for public inspection;
• it must not have given rise to any surviving rights;
• and it must not have served as the basis for a priority claim.

In the Coloratura case, these conditions were not met. Because the February 2017 application had been published, it necessarily constituted the first application. As a result, the priority period had already expired when the EU trademark application was filed, depriving Capella of any right to claim priority.

Conclusion

The priority rule in trademark law remains an essential tool for companies seeking to develop their trademarks internationally. It allows businesses to balance strategic flexibility with legal certainty by providing a six-month period to organize the territorial extension of a trademark filing.

However, the Coloratura judgment clearly demonstrates that this mechanism must be used strictly within its intended purpose: enabling the international expansion of a trademark rather than creating artificial strategies to extend legal protection.

A rigorous trademark filing strategy combined with careful anticipation of target markets therefore remains essential for securing an effective trademark portfolio.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. Does the priority rule also apply to designs or patents?

Yes, the priority rule is not limited to trademarks. It also applies to patents, industrial designsunder similar rules provided by the Paris Convention.

2. Does claiming priority affect the duration of trademark protection?

No, the duration of protection for an EU trademark remains ten years from the filing date of the EU application, even if priority has been claimed. Priority affects only the legal seniority of the trademark, not its duration.

3. Can priority be claimed from an application filed in any country?

Priority can be claimed from an application filed in a country that is a member of the Paris Convention or the World Trade Organization (WTO). This means the first filing may originate from a wide range of jurisdictions worldwide.

4. Can multiple filings be used to extend the priority period?

No, European case law, including the Coloratura ruling, clearly confirms that the priority mechanism cannot be misused to artificially extend priority periods through successive filings.

5. Does priority apply to all goods and services in a later application?

No, priority applies only to the goods and services covered by the original application.

This publication is intended to provide general information to the public and to highlight certain legal issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

With the digital transformation of businesses, several signs may now be used to identify a company: the company name, the trademark, the trade name, and the domain name. These concepts are frequently confused, although they operate under distinct legal frameworks.

In practice, many business owners believe that reserving a domain name automatically grants them exclusive rights over a name. However, these various signs do not follow the same rules regarding creation, attribution, and protection.

Understanding the distinction between these two concepts is essential in order to avoid disputes relating to prior rights, unfair competition, or cybersquatting.

Although a company’s name and a domain name may be identical, they are governed by different legal regimes and do not benefit from the same level of protection.

What is a company name?

The company name is the official name of a legal entity. It allows a company to be identified in legal terms, like a family name identifies a natural person.

In France, a company’s name is chosen when the company is incorporated and is included in its articles of incorporation. In practice, protection of this distinctive sign takes effect upon the company’s registration in the National Business Register, which confers legal personality on the company. Case law thus recognizes that the corporate name constitutes a distinctive sign protected against the risk of confusion (for example: Cass. com., March 12, 1985, No. 84-17.163).

The company name must also be used in the company’s legal and business dealings. It therefore appears on contracts, invoices, administrative and commercial documents, as well as in the website’s legal notices.

It is important to distinguish the corporate name from other related concepts:

 A trade name is the name used in business to identify a business entity. A trade name may differ from the company’s corporate name and, as such, constitutes a distinctive mark used in commercial transactions.

 A store sign is a visible identifier that allows the public to recognize a business, such as the name displayed on the front of a store or restaurant

What is a domain name?

A domain name is the address used to access a website. It typically consists of a name followed by a domain extension, such as .fr, .eu, or .com.

Today, this name plays a strategic role, as it determines a company’s online visibility and contributes to its digital identity.

Unlike a company name, a domain name is not assigned by a legal authority but by technical organizations responsible for managing internet domain extensions. At the international level, ICANN coordinates the domain name system and accredits registrars that sell and register domain names on behalf of users.

The management of the various domain extensions is handled by national or regional domain name registries.

– The .fr extension is administered by AFNIC,
– The .eu extension is managed by EURid.

Obtaining a domain name is based on a simple principle: first come, first served. Any operator may register an available domain name through an accredited registrar and subsequently renew the registration annually upon payment of the applicable fees.

When a domain name is registered, no systematic verification of prior rights is carried out. Consequently, it is technically possible to register a domain name that infringes an existing company name.

The main legal differences

The first difference concerns the legal nature of these two signs.

• The company name is an element of company law used to formally identify a legal entity.

• The domain name was originally a technical address allowing access to a website on the global Internet.

However, practice increasingly recognise its economic and distinctive function.

The method of acquisition also differs. The company name arises upon the company’s registration in the National Register of Companies whereas a domain name is obtained simply by reserving it through a registrar.

The legal protection regime also varies.

• The company name generally benefits from protection throughout the national territory, provided that there is a risk of confusion with the activity of another undertaking.

• A domain name, by contrast, does not in itself confer an exclusive right comparable to that of a trademark or company name, nor does it benefit from a specific territorial protection regime. It primarily constitutes a unique technical address within a given extension, allowing access to a website.

This address may be visible worldwide.

Finally, their economic function differs. The company name serves to legally identify a company. The domain name primarily constitutes a technical address enabling access to a website, although it may also contribute to identifying an economic activity on the Internet.

Frequent conflicts between company names and domain names

Conflicts generally arise when several parties claim rights over the same sign. They may occur when a domain name infringes a prior company name. In such cases, courts assess in particular whether there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public, taking into account the priority of the sign, the field of activity, and the conditions under which the disputed domain name is used.

Under French law, such disputes may notably be based on unfair competition, pursuant to Article 1240 of the French Civil Code.

Furthermore, Article L.45-2 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code provides that the registration or use of a domain name must not infringe the rights of third parties. On this basis, alternative dispute resolution procedures have been established for .fr domain names, including the SYRELI procedure managed by AFNIC.

This procedure may result in the deletion or transfer of a domain name when it infringes prior rights.
Although the company name is not expressly mentioned in this provision, it may nonetheless be invoked as a prior right in these procedures or before judicial courts.

At the European Union level, certain disputes relating to domain names are subject to specific regulation. The .eu extension is governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/517, and disputes may be resolved through an alternative dispute resolution procedure administered notably by the Czech Arbitration Court.

Conclusion

The company name and the domain name pursue different but complementary objectives. These two elements may be identical, but they are governed by different legal regimes and benefit from different levels of protection.

In a highly digitalised economic environment, it is therefore essential to adopt a coherent strategy combining company law considerations with domain name management in order to effectively secure a company’s identity over the long term.

Dreyfus Law Firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

Can a company use a domain name different from its company name?
A company is not required to use its corporate name as its domain name. It may choose a name that is shorter, more commercial, or better suited to its online activities.

Can a domain name be reserved before the company is created?
Yes. It is possible to reserve a domain name before incorporating a company. This practice is common in order to secure a digital identity prior to the company’s registration.

Should the existence of a trademark be checked before reserving a domain name?
This is strongly recommended. A domain name may infringe a prior trademark, which could lead to a trademark counterfeiting action or the transfer of the domain name.

Can a company own multiple domain names?
Absolutely, a company may register several domain names in order to protect its digital identity or redirect users to the same website.

Can domain names be seized or included in insolvency proceedings?
Yes, as an intangible asset, a domain name may form part of a company’s assets and may therefore be transferred or seized.

Introduction

In 2026, the European Union launched a comprehensive evaluation of the Community plant variety rights system, which has been the cornerstone of the protection of plant innovations for nearly thirty years. This process could pave the way for a major reform of the European plant breeders’ rights regime, with direct consequences for plant breeders, seed companies and the entire agri-food chain.

As European agriculture faces structural challenges (climate change, food security, the ecological transition and biotechnological developments), the European Commission aims to determine whether the current legal framework remains fit for purpose. This strategic reflection comes at a time of rapid evolution in plant breeding techniques and intensifying global competition.

The evaluation launched by the European Commission: objectives and methodology

A public consultation opened in 2026

On January 26, 2026, the European Commission officially launched a public consultation aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the Community plant variety rights system.

This consultation invites all stakeholders in the sector to share their experience and observations, including plant breeders, seed companies, farmers, research institutes, public authorities and civil society organisations.

Open for a twelve-week period until April 20, 2026, this initiative seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current framework, particularly Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, in order to determine whether it should be revised.

The evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission

In accordance with the European “Better Regulation” framework, the evaluation is based on five key criteria:

• Effectiveness: assessing whether the system effectively protects breeders’ rights
• Administrative efficiency: examining administrative costs for the Office (CPVO) and its users
• Relevance: determining whether the system addresses modern challenges
• Coherence: ensuring that the regime is consistent with other EU policies
• Added value: measuring the benefits of an EU-level system compared with national regimes

The analysis will notably focus on the 2011–2024 period in order to assess the sector’s evolution and the real impact of the system on agricultural innovation.

Possible reform scenarios for the plant variety rights regime

Although the Commission has not yet presented a legislative proposal, several possible reform directions can already be identified.

Modernisation of administrative procedures

One potential avenue concerns the simplification of the plant variety rights application process.
Industry stakeholders notably mention:

• Full digitalisation of procedures before the CPVO
• Shorter examination timelines for varieties
• Harmonisation of practices among national examination offices

Such modernisation would aim to reduce administrative costs for breeders, particularly innovative SMEs.

Clarification of the farmer’s privilege

Another sensitive issue concerns the farmer’s privilege, namely the possibility for farmers to reuse part of their harvest as seed, even if it comes from protected varieties.

This exception, provided for under EU law, regularly sparks debate between:

• Farmers, who favour maintaining this right
• Breeders and seed companies, who seek stronger protection for their varieties

A reform could clarify the conditions of this exception in order to reduce legal disputes.

Integration of new breeding techniques

Biotechnological innovation represents a central challenge. Modern breeding techniques, such as genome editing , new genomic techniques (NGTs), and the use of artificial intelligence in breeding programmes, raise questions about the adequacy of the current plant variety protection framework.
The European Union may also seek to clarify the relationship between plant variety rights and patents covering biotechnological inventions, a particularly sensitive issue for the seed industry.

Strategic implications for breeders and seed companies

Increasing global competition

The global seed market is currently dominated by a limited number of major international groups.

In this context, reforming the European framework could:

• Strengthen the competitiveness of European breeders
• Secure research investments
• Improve legal protection against international competition

A lever for the agricultural transition

New plant varieties, particularly those developed using new genomic techniques (NGTs), play a key role in the ecological transition of agriculture. They notably enable:

• The development of disease-resistant varieties
• Crops adapted to climatic stress
• Reduced pesticide use

Plant variety rights therefore constitute a strategic legal tool to support the objectives of the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy.

Conclusion

The evaluation currently conducted by the European Commission marks a key step in the evolution of plant variety rights in Europe. The results of the consultation are expected to be published in an evaluation report, which could lead to a revision of the founding 1994 Regulation.

For companies operating in the seed sector, this reform represents both a major legal challenge and a strategic opportunity for agricultural innovation.

The coming years will therefore be decisive in defining the balance between breeders’ protection, food sovereignty and the sustainability of European agriculture.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

What are the main challenges currently facing the European plant variety rights system?
Among the main challenges are the rapid evolution of breeding technologies, the need to support agricultural innovation, international competition in the seed sector and the search for a balance between the interests of breeders and those of farmers.

Could the reform modify the procedures for protecting plant varieties?
An evolution of the legal framework could lead to modernised administrative procedures, including the digitalisation of applications and improved cooperation between national and European offices.

What impact could a reform of European plant variety rights have on the seed sector?
A reform could alter the balance between breeders’ protection and farmers’ rights, while influencing conditions for innovation and investment in plant breeding. It could also strengthen the competitiveness of European companies and support the development of new varieties adapted to climate and agricultural challenges.

How can companies anticipate a potential reform of the European system?
Industry stakeholders should closely monitor the work of the European Commission, participate in public consultations and adapt their intellectual property strategies accordingly. Active legal and regulatory monitoring can help anticipate changes to the protection framework and secure investments in plant breeding.

Is the European plant variety rights system aligned with international rules?
Yes. The European regime is part of the international framework governing plant variety protection, particularly the UPOV Convention, which ensures a certain level of consistency between protection systems across different countries.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It does not aim to address specific situations and should not be considered legal advice.

Introduction

Unfair competition, based on Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, is sometimes perceived as a generalist action, whose implementation can be delicate due to the requirement to demonstrate a fault, a prejudice and a causal link.

This flexibility, often criticized, nevertheless constitutes its main strength: unfair competition remains almost always mobilizable, provided that there is an infringement on the normal play of competition and this, regardless of the field concerned.

The functional limitations of traditional procedures according to the configuration of the dispute

• Trademark law

Trademark law is a central instrument for the protection of distinctive signs. It is however based on the existence of valid, registered and enforceable prior rights, as well as on an analysis structured around the goods and services concerned.

However, litigation practice reveals many situations in which these conditions do not allow for an effective understanding of digital breaches.

Some domain names indeed exploit unregistered signs while other disputes involve operators outside the field of specialty covered by the trademark, while taking unfair advantage of the economic value of the sign.

Moreover, the unfair competition action has the advantage of not subordinating protection to the distinctive character of the domain name. It makes it possible to sanction the wrongful use of a name, as soon as it produces an adverse economic effect on a competing operator, regardless of the nature of the sign.

In these configurations, the strictly formal analysis of trademark law shows its limits. The action in unfair competition then allows to refocus the debate on the economic reality of behaviors, by sanctioning the concrete effects produced on the market, regardless of classifications or labels.

• UDRP procedures and related mechanisms

UDRP procedures and related mechanisms offer a quick and operational response to domain name conflicts. Their effectiveness, however, relies on a deliberately limited normative framework, focused on precise and cumulative criteria.

These procedures do not allow for the award of damages, nor the overall understanding of structured digital parasitism strategies, particularly when they are sustainable or involve a plurality of domain names, mirror sites or communication channels. Where the UDRP requires a standardized demonstration of bad faith, unfair competition makes it possible to understand the entire economic behavior, its effects on the market and the harm suffered.

For more information about the UDRP procedure, please refer to our previously published guide.

The conditions of the unfair competition action applied to domain names

Unfair competition is based on a now well-established triptych: a fault, a harm and a causal link.

• The characterization of the fault

The fault can take several forms, frequently retained by the courts:

• Economic parasitism, notably through the registration or exploitation of a domain name in the economic wake of an established player, in order to unduly profit from its investments.
• Risk of confusion: The case law indicates that regardless of the existence of a private right and any requirement of distinctiveness, unfair competition can be considered as soon as the use of a second domain name creates, in a competitive context, a risk of confusion with a domain name previously exploited. (Court of Cassation, civil, Commercial Chamber, October 13, 2021 No.19-23.597)
• Diversion of traffic through imitation of architecture, content or editorial line

Contrary to certain administrative procedures focused on the ownership of rights, unfair competition focuses on the effect produced on the public.

• The prejudice and the proof of the commercial disturbance

The actual harm does not have to be quantified in an exhaustive manner. Judges widely admit the demonstration of a commercial disturbance, loss of chance or damage to the image, in particular when the disputed domain name unduly captures part of the traffic or alters the public perception as to the origin of the services offered.

Strategic articulation of the different foundations

An action based on unfair competition is neither a recourse in principle nor a legal remedy superior to other available mechanisms for disputes relating to domain names. It is part of a range of complementary legal tools, the mobilization of which must be assessed in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

Depending on the configuration of the dispute, the nature of the rights invoked, the behavior of the domain name holder and the objectives pursued, an action based on trademark law or an extrajudicial procedure such as UDRP can offer a fully satisfactory response, especially when the impairment is circumscribed and clearly characterized.

Unfair competition is relevant when the analysis reveals actions that are not apprehended by a strictly formal reading of the sign, but reflect an overall economic behavior.

Conclusion

Unfair competition does not respond to all domain name conflicts, but it remains an option of general application when a behavior reveals a faulty economic behavior.

Based on tort liability, it offers a flexible and transversal reading grid, allowing to assess situations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the reality of uses and their effects on the market.

Dreyfus & Associates assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Can we act in unfair competition without being a direct competitor of the domain name holder?
Yes. The case-law accepts that the existence of a direct competitive relationship is not always required where the conduct in question disrupts normal market activity or causes an identifiable economic disturbance.

2. Must an intent to harm be demonstrated to characterize unfair competition?
No. Unfair competition is a strict civil liability: intent is not required. Only the faulty character of the behavior and its economic effects count.

3. Does a subsequent change of domain name make the fault disappear?
No. The cessation of actions does not retroactively erase the fault or the harm already caused. It can however be taken into account in the assessment of damages

4. Does unfair competition allow the domain name to be transferred?
In principle, an unfair competition action does not allow the direct transfer of a domain name to be ordered. On the other hand, the judge may order measures of cessation or prohibition on a periodic basis, which may lead, in practice, to the abandonment or deactivation of the disputed domain name.

5. Can unfair competition be retained in the absence of proven confusion?
Yes. As regards unfair competition, certain behaviour, in particular economic parasitism, may be sanctioned independently of any risk of confusion, insofar as it reflects an improper appropriation of investments or the reputation of an operator.

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.

Introduction

In its decision Monster Energy Company v. Onyx of November 13,  2025 (n° 23-11.522), the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) clearly reaffirmed a guiding principle of French trademark law: the likelihood of confusion must be assessed on the basis of the signs as filed and the goods or services as designated in the registrations or applications, without taking into account the actual conditions under which the trademarks are used on the market.

In the specific context of opposition proceedings, the Court recalled that the analysis must remain tied to the industrial property title itself, rather than to the commercial, graphic, or promotional choices effectively implemented by the operators.

The ruling therefore falls within a longstanding and coherent line of case law, previously established in matters of trademark infringement, invalidity actions, and comparison of signs.

Background of the dispute: an opposition between “THE BEAST” and “La Bête”

The company Monster Energy Company, notably the owner of the European Union word trademarks REFRESH THE BEAST! and HYDRATE THE BEAST!, registered for beverages, filed an opposition against the application for registration of the semi-figurative sign La Bête BIÈRE DE CARACTÈRE, which designated, among other things, beer, mineral water, and fruit juices.

The litigation concerned goods that were at least partially identical or similar, in a sector where the overall perception of the signs plays a decisive role.

The Director General of the French Trademark Office (INPI) initially found the opposition partially justified. However, the Versailles court of appeal subsequently annulled that decision.

To rule out any likelihood of confusion, the Court of Appeal found that the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the signs were relatively weak. It further held that the figurative elements of the contested sign, particularly its graphic presentation, colors, and visual impact on store shelves, gave the sign a distinctive appearance capable of excluding any likelihood of confusion in the mind of the consumer.

It is precisely this method of analysis that the French Supreme Court censured.

The decision of the French Supreme Court: a twofold censure

The Cour de cassation overturned the reasoning of the Versailles Court of Appeal for two reasons.

• First, it identified a contradiction of reasoning under Article 455 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeal had acknowledged a certain conceptual proximity between the signs while subsequently asserting that no conceptual similarity existed.
• Second, the Supreme Court held that the judges had violated Article L.711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code by basing their analysis on the actual conditions under which the signs were used in commerce.

The Court reiterated that the likelihood of confusion is assessed primarily in relation to the signs as filed and the goods or services as designated in the registrations or applications for registration, regardless of the specific terms of commercial exploitation of the trademarks.

In the present case, by emphasizing that the beverages were primarily chosen on store shelves and that the visual aspect of the packaging played a decisive role for consumers, the Court of Appeal departed from this methodological framework.

This approach is consistent with well-established case law. In trademark infringement matters, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the same principle in the decision Palladium of June 28, 2023 (n°22-10.759) , as well as in the significant decision Cora of March 27, 2019 (n°17-31.605). In each of these cases, the Court held that conditions of commercialization, the actual customer base, or marketing positioning are irrelevant to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The scope of the rule at the stage of comparing the signs

Another key contribution of the November 13, 2025 decision lies in clarifying the distinction between comparison of the signs and global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

For instance, the Tour de France decision of March 19, 2025 (n° 23-18.728) may be compared with the Monster Energy case. In that matter, the French Supreme Court censured a decision where the Court of Appeal had taken into account the well-known exploitation of the earlier trademark in connection with a cycling competition when comparing the signs.

The Supreme Court held that by considering how the public actually associated the trademark with a specific sporting event, the Court of Appeal had departed from a comparison based solely on the intrinsic characteristics of the signs.

In both cases, the Supreme Court refused to allow the analysis to shift toward external elements unrelated to the trademark registration, such as:

• the particular reputation of the trademark arising from its use,
• the presentation of the product on retail shelves,
• or the actual packaging of the goods.

The position of the CJEU: a more nuanced approach

European case law adopts a slightly different approach. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified in a decision of March 4, 2020 (C-328/18 P) that conditions of commercialization may constitute a relevant factor in the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

However, these elements may intervene only at a specific stage of the analysis. The CJEU emphasizes that the comparison of the similarity between signs must be carried out exclusively on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics.

Thus, while conditions of commercialization may be considered in the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, they cannot influence the comparison of the signs themselves.

Conclusion

The decision of November 13, 2025 provides a new illustration of the methodological rigor adopted by the French Supreme Court in assessing the likelihood of confusion.

By reaffirming that this assessment must be conducted independently of the conditions under which trademarks are used, the Court confirms a structuring principle of French trademark law: the protection of a trademark is determined primarily by its registration in the register, rather than by the way it is exploited on the market.

For businesses, this case law highlights the importance of a rigorous trademark filing and protection strategy, based on a thorough prior-rights analysis and carefully drafted specifications of goods and services.

Dreyfus assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. What is the difference between opposition proceedings and a trademark infringement action?

Opposition is a preventive administrative procedure aimed at preventing the registration of a new trademark that would infringe prior rights. It takes place before the trademark is registered. By contrast, a trademark infringement action is a judicial procedure brought after a sign has been registered or used, in order to sanction an infringement of trademark rights.

2. Who can file an opposition to a trademark application?

An opposition may be filed by the holder of a protected prior right. This may include a registered trademark, a European Union trademark, an international trademark designating France, a company name, a trade name, a domain name, or even a geographical indication, provided that these rights are capable of creating a likelihood of confusion with the applied-for trademark.

3. Is the assessment of likelihood of confusion the same in French law and EU law?

The French Supreme Court traditionally adopts a strict approach, emphasizing that the analysis must rely on the trademarks as registered and the goods or services as designated in the filings. The CJEU, for its part, accepts that certain elements relating to the commercial context may be considered in the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, without affecting the intrinsic comparison of the signs.

4. Is the likelihood of confusion assessed in the same way across all economic sectors?

No. The assessment of likelihood of confusion takes into account the level of attention of the relevant public, which may vary depending on the goods or services concerned. For example, consumers generally exercise greater attention when purchasing technical or expensive products than when buying everyday consumer goods.

5. Does the absence of opposition mean that a trademark does not infringe any prior rights?

No. The absence of opposition does not guarantee the definitive validity of a trademark. A registered trademark may still be challenged later through infringement proceedings or an invalidity action based on prior rights. For this reason, companies should conduct thorough prior art searches before filing a trademark application.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Choosing a plant variety denomination constitutes a strategic legal step in the procedure for obtaining plant variety rights. It has lasting implications for the identification, commercialization and valorization of a plant variety on the market.

Too often treated as a mere administrative formality, the denomination actually lies at the intersection of plant variety rights law, trademark law, and competition law.

The issue is therefore not purely regulatory. It also involves economic, reputational and international considerations. This article provides a structured analysis of the applicable rules, the risks of refusal and potential conflicts with trademarks, incorporating the key lessons from the “WILD PINK” / “PINK LADY” case.

The legal function of the plant variety denomination

A plant variety denomination is the official identifier of a plant variety protected under a plant variety right certificate. It must be used by any operator marketing the plant variety within the European Union.

Unlike a trademark, a plant variety denomination does not confer any exclusive right of use. It constitutes the generic designation of the plant variety and cannot be monopolized by an operator or appropriated as a proprietary distinctive sign. Its primary purpose is to ensure market transparency and the clear identification of plant material.

This public interest function explains the neutrality requirements surrounding its selection, as well as the prohibition of adopting a denomination that may create confusion with another plant variety or trademark, or mislead the public.

Validity criteria : lawfulness, distinctiveness and neutrality

The denomination must clearly distinguish itself from any other plant variety of the same species or closely related species. A simple spelling variation or minor modification is not sufficient to eliminate the risk of confusion.

It must not suggest an inaccurate geographical origin nor attribute particular qualities to the plant variety that have not been demonstrated. Laudatory or promotional references are generally rejected, as they undermine the neutrality expected from a regulatory identifier.

Frequent grounds for refusal by the CPVO

The examination of a plant variety denomination aims to ensure that it properly fulfills its function of identifying the plant variety. Competent authorities may refuse a denomination that does not meet the criteria established by the UPOV Convention.

The most common ground for refusal concerns similarity with an existing plant variety denomination. The proposed denomination must be clearly distinguishable from any denomination already used for a plant variety of the same species or a closely related species. Even a minimal spelling difference may be considered insufficient if the phonetic similarity could create confusion between varieties.

A denomination may also be refused if it is misleading or descriptive. The denomination must not mislead users as to the characteristics, value or identity of the plant variety. For example, a denomination suggesting a characteristic that the plant variety does not possess, or presenting the plant variety as superior to others, may be considered inappropriate.

Denominations that falsely suggest a connection with another plant variety may also be rejected. A denomination may be considered misleading if it suggests that the plant variety is derived from a well-known plant variety when that plant variety was not actually used in the breeding process.

Finally, a denomination may be refused where it infringes prior rights held by third parties, such as trademarks, trade names, geographical indications or other protected signs. In such cases, the breeder may be required to propose a new denomination in order to avoid legal conflicts when the plant variety is commercialized.

These different grounds for refusal illustrate that the choice of a plant variety denomination cannot be considered in isolation. It operates within a broader legal environment in which plant variety denominations often coexist with distinctive signs used for marketing purposes. This interaction raises the broader question of the relationship between plant variety denominations and trademark strategies.

The strategic articulation between plant variety denominations and trademarks

The rules governing plant variety denominations pursue a public interest objective: ensuring the clear and reliable identification of plant varieties on the market. In this context, the plant variety denomination must constitute the generic designation of the plant variety and remain freely usable by all operators marketing it. It cannot therefore fulfill a distinctive function comparable to that of a trademark.

This explains why authorities examining plant variety denominations pay particular attention to risks of confusion and potential infringements of prior rights. A denomination may therefore be refused if it is too similar to an existing plant variety denomination, if it is misleading regarding the characteristics of the plant variety, or if it conflicts with a prior right such as a trademark or trade name.

In practice within the horticultural and agricultural sectors, this requirement leads to a clear distinction between two levels of designation: the plant variety denomination, which enables the botanical and regulatory identification of the plant variety, and the trademark, which serves as the main tool for commercial differentiation.

The example of the Cripps Pink apple plant variety, marketed under the trademark Pink Lady, illustrates this model. The plant variety denomination fulfills a technical identification function and must be used in the marketing of plant material, while the trademark supports the marketing strategy and creates a distinct commercial identity.

This dual structure requires breeders to adopt a strategic approach from the moment the denomination is chosen. A denomination that is too close to an existing trademark may lead to refusal based on prior rights or later create difficulties when the plant variety is commercialized.

In this context, securing a plant variety denomination requires not only verifying its availability in international plant variety databases but also anticipating possible interactions with existing distinctive signs in the relevant sector. Early coordination between the plant variety denomination strategy and the trademark strategy helps limit legal risks and ensures a more secure market launch for the plant variety.

Illustration : the “WILD PINK” / “PINK LADY” dispute

The interaction between naming strategies and trademark rights can be illustrated by the dispute involving the sign WILD PINK and the Pink Lady trademarks, which are widely known in the apple sector.

In this case, the competent authorities were required to assess the likelihood of confusion between the signs, particularly due to the shared element “pink” and the overall impression produced by the trademarks on the relevant public. The analysis relied on the traditional criteria of trademark law, including visual and phonetic similarity, consumer perception and the distinctiveness of the elements composing the trademarks.

Although this dispute falls primarily within the scope of trademark law, it highlights a strategic issue that is directly relevant for breeders. In the horticultural sector, certain terms may become strongly associated with well-established trademarks. Using a similar term when marketing a new plant variety may therefore give rise to legal challenges capable of affecting the commercialization strategy.
This situation demonstrates that securing a plant variety denomination should not be considered independently from the trademark strategy that will accompany the marketing of the plant variety. Conducting a prior analysis of the trademark landscape within the relevant sector is therefore essential to avoid conflicts with already established distinctive signs.

Conclusion

The choice of a plant variety denomination is not merely an administrative formality but a strategic decision that must be assessed in light of the applicable legal rules and the broader landscape of prior rights, particularly trademarks.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of specialized intellectual property lawyers.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. What is a plant variety denomination ?
A plant variety denomination is the official name assigned to a plant variety that is protected or subject to an application for a plant breeder’s right. It serves to identify the plant variety and must be used when marketing its reproductive or propagating material.

2. What are the main criteria for choosing a plant variety denomination ?
The denomination must clearly identify the plant variety, be distinct from existing denominations for varieties of the same or related species, and must not be misleading regarding the characteristics, origin or value of the plant variety.

3. Can a plant variety denomination be refused ?
Yes. Competent authorities, such as the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), may refuse a denomination if it is too similar to an existing plant variety denomination, if it is misleading, or if it infringes a prior right such as a trademark or protected geographical indication.

4. What is the difference between a plant variety denomination and a trademark ?
A plant variety denomination constitutes the generic designation of the plant variety and does not confer any exclusive right. By contrast, a trademark is a distinctive sign used to differentiate products commercially on the market. In the horticultural sector, a plant variety may therefore have a plant variety denomination while being marketed under a trademark.

5. How can the choice of a plant variety denomination be secured ?
Before proposing a denomination, it is advisable to conduct searches in databases of existing varieties, including those derived from the UPOV system, as well as in trademark databases in order to identify potential prior rights. Coordinating the plant variety denomination strategy with the trademark strategy can also help reduce the risk of refusal or conflict during commercialization.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.