News

On March 6, 2025, the Montpellier Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling (No. 23/01999) confirming that sales conducted via social media platforms, such as Instagram, are subject to the same consumer protection rules as traditional distance sales. This decision reaffirms the legal obligation for sellers to inform consumers of their right of withdrawal, a fundamental consumer right under European Union law.

Background of the case

The Montpellier Court of Appeal ruled in a case involving a dispute between a consumer and a micro-entrepreneur operating via Instagram. The seller had failed to inform the buyer of their withdrawal rights. The buyer subsequently requested the cancellation of the sale and a refund. The court confirmed that the transaction qualified as a distance contract, as it had been concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of both parties.

Understanding the right of withdrawal

What is the right of withdrawal ?

The right of withdrawal entitles consumers to cancel a purchase within 14 days without having to provide any justification and without incurring additional charges, apart from potential return shipping costs. This right applies to contracts concluded at a distance or outside the seller’s business premises, including online, by telephone, and increasingly, through social media.

The legal framework

In France, the right of withdrawal is governed by Articles L.221-18 to L.221-28 of the French Consumer Code. Article L.221-18 grants consumers 14 days from delivery or contract signature to exercise this right. Importantly, if the seller fails to inform the consumer of this right, the withdrawal period is extended by 12 months, pursuant to Article L.221-20.

Social media sales as distance contracts

Are social media sales considered distance sales ?

In ruling No. 23/01999, the Montpellier Court of Appeal held that Instagram-based sales do indeed qualify as distance sales. While social media platforms are not designed solely for commercial transactions, the court emphasized that the absence of simultaneous physical presence between seller and buyer meets the criteria set out in Article L.221-1 of the French Consumer Code.

The seller’s duty to inform

Sellers operating via social media are legally obliged to inform consumers of their right of withdrawal before the contract is concluded. This includes providing clear and accessible information about the existence of the right, how it may be exercised, and the applicable timeframe. Failure to comply with this obligation not only extends the withdrawal period but may also expose sellers to legal consequences.

The role of social media platforms

Can social media platforms be held liable ?

The obligation to inform consumers rests primarily with the seller. Social media platforms, as intermediaries, are not generally held responsible unless they are directly involved in the transaction, for instance, by facilitating payment or processing orders. Nevertheless, platforms can support compliance by offering features such as customizable terms and conditions fields or links to consumer rights information.

EU regulations on online intermediaries

What does EU law say ?

Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights harmonizes distance and off-premises contract rules across the EU, mandating that consumers be informed of their right of withdrawal before contract formation. Additionally, Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services reinforces the importance of transparency in digital transactions, thereby indirectly supporting the enforcement of consumer rights, including the right of withdrawal.

Conclusion

The Montpellier Court of Appeal’s decision of 6 March 2025 underscores a key principle : sales conducted via social media platforms are subject to the same consumer protection rules as traditional distance sales. Sellers must ensure compliance with their obligation to inform consumers about the right of withdrawal, in accordance with both national and EU legislation. Failing to do so not only erodes consumer trust but also exposes sellers to legal risks and potential sanctions.

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

Dreyfus & Associés is partnered with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)‘s decision in Case C-575/23, concerning the Orchestre National de Belgique (ONB) and the Belgian State, has far-reaching consequences for the right to remuneration and protection of artists’ neighboring rights under European Union law. The ruling challenges national mechanisms that force artists to assign their neighboring rights to their employers without their prior consent, highlighting a potential conflict with EU regulations.

This article will explore the legal principles set out in this landmark decision, assess its impact on European intellectual property law, and discuss its ramifications on national systems that involve assigning rights without consent, particularly in the context of employment contracts and collective works.

Overview of the CJEU’s ruling in case C-575/23

In the case at hand, the CJEU ruled that national regulations mandating the automatic assignment of neighboring rights by artists-interpreters or performers under administrative status, particularly within public institutions such as the Orchestre National de Belgique, are contrary to EU law. The decision explicitly states that such assignment mechanisms, without prior consent from the artists, violate the principles of fair remuneration and the right of authors to control the exploitation of their creations.

The CJEU referred to multiple provisions of EU directives, particularly Directive 2019/790, which emphasizes that the consent of artists is a necessary precondition for the transfer of rights, specifically addressing the issue of fair remuneration for the exploitation of these rights.

Legal context: The Union’s regulations and the assignment of rights

The CJEU based its decision on key provisions of several EU directives regulating copyright and neighboring rights, including Directive 2001/29/EC (on copyright in the information society) and Directive 2006/115/EC (on rental and lending rights). These directives stress that:

• Artists have exclusive rights over their performances and neighboring rights, including the right to control how their performances are used.
• Any assignment of these rights requires their prior consent and must adhere to appropriate remuneration principles.

The CJEU emphasized that an assignment without consent is incompatible with the European Union’s protection standards, which are designed to guarantee fair treatment and compensation for artists.

Analysis of the ruling’s impact on national systems

4.1. The applicability of consent in assignment of rights

One of the central points of the CJEU‘s decision is the requirement for consent. It ruled that automatic assignment of rights, especially those of artists-interpreters, is not valid without prior consent. This principle is rooted in the protection of artistic freedom and the right to fair remuneration for the exploitation of their work.

In practical terms, this ruling makes it imperative for national laws to respect the artists’ right to negotiate and consent to the transfer of their rights, ensuring that they are remunerated appropriately for the use of their works. The directive 2019/790 reinforces the necessity of consent for the assignment of rights in employment settings and in the context of performing arts.

Key quote from the judgment:

“In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions raised is that Article 2(b) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29, and Article 3(1)(b), Article 7(1), Article 8(1) and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the assignment, by means of a regulatory act, for the purpose of exploitation by the employer, of the related rights of performers engaged under an administrative law statute, in respect of the performances carried out in the context of their service to that employer, without the prior consent of those performers.”

4.2. Consequences on employment contracts and artist rights

The ruling carries significant implications for employment contracts in the creative industries, particularly in public institutions or non-profit organizations such as orchestras, theaters, and other performance arts entities. By invalidating automatic assignment provisions in employment contracts, the CJEU upholds the contractual freedom of artists, ensuring that their neighboring rights are protected under EU law.

This decision could lead to revisions in employment contracts, with employers now required to engage in explicit negotiations and ensure that artists’ rights are not only recognized but also fairly compensated.

4.3. Implications for future legislation

This ruling serves as a catalyst for potential changes in EU and national legislation. It challenges existing legal mechanisms that permitted forced assignment of rights, and it might prompt revisions in areas such as labor law and intellectual property law. Furthermore, the CJEU ruling brings clarity to the implementation of fair remuneration, which is a critical component of Directive 2019/790.

Additionally, this ruling could influence the classification of collective works and how authors’ rights are addressed in creative industries. The shift towards artist-centric regulations could mean greater control for performers and creators over the exploitation of their intellectual property.

Conclusion: A turning point for artists’ protection in the EU

The CJEU’s decision in Case C-575/23 marks a significant milestone in the protection of artists’ rights within the European Union. By invalidating the practice of automatic assignment of neighboring rights without prior consent, the Court reaffirms the EU’s commitment to ensuring that artists and performers are fairly remunerated and have control over their work. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching consequences for employment contracts, collective works, and the overall protection of intellectual property in the EU.

FAQ

The valuation of intangible assets has become a major issue in the economic strategies of modern companies. These assets, which include trademarks, patents, software, designs & models and databases, now account for an ever-increasing proportion of corporate value. Thanks to technological advances, and in particular the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI), new valuation methods are possible, enabling more accurate, dynamic and efficient valuation of these often-underutilised exploited intangible resources. This article explores the global impact of AI in the valuation and maximisation of the value of these intangible assets, offering tools for predictive analysis, automation and legal security.

Why AI is revolutionising intangible asset valuation

The emergence of artificial intelligence is profoundly changing the way we value intangible assets, which are now at the heart of economic strategies. These assets have gone from being simple ‘positive externalities’ to becoming genuine instruments of growth. With AI, the valuation of intangible assets is becoming more objective, detailed and consistent, considering dynamic factors that were previously inaccessible.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), intangible capital now accounts for a large proportion of the market capitalisation of listed companies. In this context, it is imperative to adopt tools that are equal to the challenge. AI is now established as a vector for automation, anticipation and security, contributing to the legal, financial and strategic optimisation of intangible assets.

New value drivers enabled by AI

AI as a catalyst for intellectual property development

Artificial intelligence tools can proactively identify exploitable inventions, creations or distinctive signs, facilitating their protection by intellectual property rights. Numerous technologies developed by AI support innovation while automatically tracing the authorship of assets.

In particular, semantic analysis refers to the ability developed by AI to understand the meaning of words within a text or data. For example, by simply reading a patent, AI will be able to determine key concepts and their links, such as a specific technology or a particular innovation, without needing to be explicitly programmed for each detail. AI also facilitates the recognition of technical patterns, which enables the identification of recurring motifs or structures in technical data, such as product drawings, diagrams or technical ideas. In particular, it will be able to automatically detect a technical solution similar to an existing invention in a patent.

These technologies are even more effective because they are based on self-learning models. These algorithms enable AI to learn and improve over time, without being explicitly programmed for each situation. In this way, AI will become better at predicting the novelty of a patent as data on past patents is accumulated.

This translates into an acceleration of patent, design and trademark filings, but also into an improvement in the quality of registered rights, based on objectively qualified criteria of distinctiveness, use or novelty.

Predictive analytics and scoring of intangible assets

AI enables detailed evaluations of intangible assets based on extensive datasets: social media presence, scientific citations, prior art, comparable transactions, and market trends. These analyses produce dynamic and regularly updated ratings, invaluable for fundraising, asset sales, or financial reporting.

Moreover, AI-generated scenarios predict future valuations, considering market shifts and regulatory developments crucial for M&A due diligence and IP litigation strategy.

Toward standardised AI-based valuation methods

Concrete examples: patents, databases, software

In the technology, healthcare and telecoms sectors, AI can be used to value patents based on the estimated lifetime of the titles, their potential for commercial exploitation or cross-citation mapping. In fact, AI can examine patents and identify those that have been cited in other patents or publications. These citations highlight connections between ideas and similar technologies, providing a better understanding of the evolution of innovation in a specific field. By cross-referencing this information, AI can create a “map” listing the various inventions and their relationship in a network, making it easier to assess the novelty, importance or influence of an invention in relation to overall technological development.

Similarly, databases and software can be assessed on the basis of their functional architecture, reuse rate and competitive exposure.

The critical issue of algorithm traceability

The use of AI in this context requires traceability of the valuation processes, both for reasons of legal security and regulatory compliance, particularly with regard to the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the European Digital Services Act (DSA). Any potential biases in algorithms must be documented, particularly in terms of financial predictions or investment decisions. Algorithms must also be auditable.

Legal and regulatory framework: risks and opportunities

The European Commission, the OECD and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) are encouraging the use of artificial intelligence in the analysis of intangible assets, while insisting on the need for open, interoperable and auditable standards. To achieve transparency, economic efficiency and legal certainty, companies must rely on partners specialising in intellectual property, AI and asset valuation.

The French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) also stresses that the use of personal data in predictive models must be processed lawfully, proportionately and in accordance with the principles of minimisation and purpose.

Conclusion: strengthening strategic approaches with AI

Incorporating AI into intangible asset valuation equips companies with a structural competitive edge. This transformation transcends technology, touching legal, financial, and organisational domains. The ultimate goal is to convert intangible assets into measurable, actionable, transferable, and defensible capital.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media!

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus firm team.

FAQ

Counterfeiting remains a critical threat to the integrity of intellectual property rights, impacting not only brand owners but also consumer safety and market trust. The publication of the new counterfeiting study by EUIPO and the OECD, notably involving complex product sectors such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, underscores evolving challenges. These sectors illustrate the legal and practical intricacies where product categorization, consumer perception, and regulatory frameworks converge to shape enforcement outcomes.

This article offers a detailed, professional analysis of the latest trends in counterfeiting, focusing on the European Union’s legal regime, recent case-law insights, and pragmatic enforcement strategies. Our aim is to equip clients with an in-depth understanding and effective tools to anticipate and counteract these sophisticated infringements.

I – Legal framework governing counterfeiting in the European Union

EU trademark regulation and anti-counterfeiting measures

The cornerstone of anti-counterfeiting law within the EU is the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR). Article 8(1)(b) explicitly prohibits the registration of trademarks when the goods or services are similar enough to cause likelihood of confusion among consumers, including associative confusion. This principle forms the legal basis for challenging infringing marks that underpin counterfeit products.

In addition to the EUTMR, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 delineate the scopes of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics respectively, influencing the classification and legal treatment of counterfeit goods within these sectors. The legal overlap necessitates nuanced analyses, particularly when goods straddle both classifications.

Complementary legal instruments against counterfeiting

Beyond trademark law, the EU employs a multi-layered approach including customs enforcement (Regulation (EU) No 608/2013), criminal sanctions, and civil remedies. These legal tools work synergistically to prevent the importation, distribution, and sale of counterfeit goods, ensuring brand protection and consumer safety.

II – Challenges and specificities of counterfeiting in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics

Similarities and conflicts between pharmaceuticals and cosmetics in trademark law

Recent case-law and Board of Appeal reports emphasize the blurred lines between pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, especially in skin and hair care products. The degree of similarity between these categories affects the assessment of trademark conflicts and counterfeiting claims.

• Pharmaceuticals: Medicinal products intended to treat or prevent diseases, regulated under Directive 2001/83/EC.
• Cosmetics: Products intended mainly for cleaning, perfuming, protecting or altering the appearance of the human body, as defined by Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

The case-law consistently finds low to average degrees of similarity between these categories depending on product specifics, distribution channels, and intended purposes, complicating the enforcement against counterfeiting when product categories overlap.

Case-law developments addressing counterfeiting in overlapping sectors

Notable judgments (see below) highlight the common distribution channels (pharmacies, specialized shops) and overlapping target consumers, which create conditions conducive to confusion and potential counterfeiting. Courts recognize the evolving nature of products, such as cosmeceuticals, which combine pharmaceutical and cosmetic attributes, further intensifying enforcement challenges:

• CLEANIC: 13/05/2015, T-363/12, CLEANIC natural beauty (fig.) / CLINIQUE; 13/05/2015, T-364/12, CLEANIC Kindii (fig.) / CLINIQUE; 13/05/2013, T-363/13, CLEANIC intimate (fig.) / CLINIQUE
• MITOCHRON: 13/05/2016, T-62/15, MITOCHRON / mito (fig.)
• SANOLIE: 24/03/2021, T-175/20, SANOLIE / SANODIN

III – Enforcement mechanisms and practical responses to counterfeiting

Customs and border measures

The EU’s customs regulations empower border authorities to seize counterfeit goods upon importation or exportation. This preventive measure is vital for intercepting counterfeit pharmaceuticals and cosmetics that pose serious health and safety risks.

Judicial remedies and damages

Right holders can initiate civil and criminal proceedings against counterfeiters, seeking injunctions, damages, and destruction orders. Recent jurisprudence stresses the need for robust evidence on similarity, consumer confusion, and commercial origin to succeed in litigation.

Conclusion: Strategic IP protection against new counterfeiting threats

In light of newly published counterfeiting study, it is imperative for rights holders to adopt proactive strategies, including comprehensive trademark registrations across relevant classes, vigilant market surveillance, and swift enforcement actions. Recognizing the nuanced interplay between pharmaceuticals and cosmetics can substantially enhance the effectiveness of anti-counterfeiting efforts.

The Dreyfus Law Firm stands ready to assist clients in navigating these complexities, delivering tailored advice and enforcement support across the full spectrum of intellectual property protection.

The law firm Dreyfus et Associés is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire team at the Dreyfus firm 

FAQ

The beverage market is evolving rapidly, marked by a significant rise in non-alcoholic alternatives such as alcohol-free beers, often marketed as substitutes for traditional alcoholic drinks like gin or vodka. This shift raises important trademark law questions : can a trademark registered for an alcoholic beverage prevent the registration of a similar mark covering a non-alcoholic product ? More broadly, is there a genuine risk of confusion between these product categories ?

The answer is yes, as recently confirmed by the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the landmark KINGSMAN case dated January 24, 2025. This ruling highlights the criteria that authorities consider when assessing the risk of confusion, moving beyond the mere alcoholic content of the product.

How case law, and in particular the EUIPO, analyzes the similarity between different products in trademark law

2.1 Product classification

Alcoholic beverages (such as gin, wine, or champagne) are generally classified under Class 33 of the Nice Classification, whereas non-alcoholic drinks (including alcohol-free beer) fall under Class 32. Traditionally, these distinct classes helped to limit confusion risks, as the products were perceived as fundamentally different.

2.2 A holistic assessment beyond Classes

However, market realities call for a broader analysis. The EUIPO evaluates product similarity by considering not only their nature but also their usage, distribution channels, points of sale, and how the average consumer perceives them.

Thus, the mere presence or absence of alcohol does not automatically eliminate the risk of confusion if the products are offered in similar or even identical contexts and target the same consumer base.

The KINGSMAN decision : A pivotal turning point

3.1 Case overview

In the KINGSMAN case (R 1426/2024-5), the applicant sought to register a trademark for non-alcoholic beers under Class 32, while an identical earlier mark existed for alcoholic beverages in Class 33 such as whisky, vodka, or gin.

3.2 Analysis of confusion risk

The EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal confirmed that a likelihood of confusion exists between alcoholic (such as gin) and non-alcoholic beers. Several factors underpin this conclusion :

• These products often target the same consumer in similar social settings (bars, restaurants, supermarkets).
• They circulate through overlapping distribution channels and points of sale.
• Consumers primarily perceive these products as “beverages,” regardless of alcohol content, which can lead to confusion about their commercial origin.

3.3 Practical implications

This ruling requires heightened vigilance for trademarks in this sector :

• A trademark for a non-alcoholic beverage may be challenged based on the existence of a similar mark for an alcoholic drink, and vice versa.
• De-alcoholized beverages (such as dealcoholized wines) are also considered close to alcoholic beverages in this analysis.

Understanding consumer perception and the commercial context

4.1 Points of sale and consumption patterns

Alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks are frequently sold side by side in the same venues (supermarkets, bars, restaurants) and via identical sales channels. This proximity increases the likelihood that consumers may confuse similar trademarks.

4.2 The role of alcohol content in perception

Even though consumers recognize the difference in alcohol content, trademark law focuses on the overall impression and commercial context, which can diminish this distinction. The average consumer does not necessarily possess detailed expertise and often relies on the visual and phonetic similarities of trademarks, as well as the purchasing environment.

Practical advice to effectively protect your trademark

5.1 Filing strategy and choice of Classes

To secure trademark protection in the beverage sector, it is advisable to file in both Classes 32 and 33. This dual coverage is crucial to protect both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, especially in a market where product lines often overlap or evolve.

5.2 Monitoring and enforcement actions

Active monitoring is essential to detect promptly any filings or use of similar trademarks in related classes. This allows for swift and effective enforcement in the event of confusion risk or infringement.

Conclusion : Anticipating and managing confusion risks

The beverage market’s evolution, driven by the growing popularity of non-alcoholic alternatives, profoundly impacts the criteria for assessing confusion risks under trademark law. The KINGSMAN ruling marks a turning point by recognizing a real risk of confusion between trademarks covering alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages.

For trademark owners and applicants, adopting a strategic, proactive, and comprehensive approach is key to effectively safeguarding brand image and rights.

FAQ

Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents both an industrial and legal revolution. As a key driver of innovation in software development, it raises a fundamental question: can AI be legally protected as software under current law? Addressing this requires an examination of the applicable legal frameworks primarily copyright and patent law as well as complementary protections, in light of existing legislation, including the EU Regulation 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence, commonly known as the AI Act.

Copyright protection

Eligibility criteria

Under French law, software is protected by copyright pursuant to Article L.112-2 13° of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC). This protection extends to original programs defined as those bearing “the imprint of the author’s personality” (CJEU, C-5/08, Infopaq). Protection arises automatically upon creation, without formal registration, subject to proof of authorship.

Limitations of protection

Algorithms, computational methods, and mathematical models, as such, are excluded from copyright protection under Article L.611-10 IPC. Moreover, works generated autonomously by AI without human intervention currently cannot be considered rights holders due to the absence of legal personality.

Patent protection

Patentability criteria

According to Article L.611-10 IPC and Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), software “as such” is not patentable. However, an AI program that produces a further technical effect beyond its implementation on a computer may be patentable, provided it satisfies the criteria of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. 

Specific considerations for generative AI

Generative AI systems (e.g., those producing images, code, or text) present particular challenges. They may be eligible for patent protection if they address a concrete technical problem (see EPO decision G 1/19). Purely abstract or algorithmic models remain excluded from patentability.

Other forms of protection

Trade secret

The French Law No. 2018-670 of 30 July 2018 on the Protection of Trade Secrets safeguards confidential information with economic value. This includes AI training datasets, model parameters, and proprietary architectures, provided reasonable protective measures are implemented (such as confidentiality agreements and access controls). 

Database protection

Under Article L.341-1 IPC, databases are protected by sui generis rights if their creation involved a substantial investment. This protection can extend to AI training databases. However, individual, non-original data elements remain outside the scope of protection.

Legal risks associated with the use of AI

Using AI in software development may entail risks including violations of open-source licenses, inadvertent reproduction of protected works, and infringements of moral rights. Generated code must be carefully reviewed to ensure it does not constitute unauthorized derivative works. Non-compliance with the AI Act’s provider obligations (Articles 16 to 29) may also result in civil and administrative liability.

Conclusion

The legal protection of AI as software relies on a combination of frameworks: copyright (requiring human authorship), patents (for technical innovations), trade secrets, and database rights. The AI Act regulates AI deployment without conferring legal rights upon the AI itself, placing responsibility on human operators. Therefore, protection fundamentally depends on the extent of human involvement in the creation and use of AI technologies.

FAQ

The increasing reliance on digital platforms has reinforced the critical role of access to online identification data in enforcing rights. Yet, this access remains deeply constrained by a fragmented legal framework, often subordinating victims’ rights to the anonymity of wrongdoers. In practice, victims of civil wrongs are deprived of effective recourse, while only serious criminal offenses may justify lifting anonymity.

I – Legal mechanisms to access identification data

Civil investigative measures under article 145 CPC

Victims may request data disclosure under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure before initiating legal action. This allows a judge to order disclosure measures to preserve or establish evidence, including the identity of pseudonymous online users. However, such access is fundamentally restricted by Article L. 34-1 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE), which prohibits civil litigants from accessing connection data, such as IP addresses, outside the criminal sphere.

This limitation has de facto created a regime of civil impunity for online misconduct, even when the infringement is deliberate and documented, as in the case of identity theft or reputational harm.

Criminal measures and the threshold of serious crime

By contrast, the CPCE authorizes the retention and disclosure of identification data in the context of criminal proceedings. These include:

• Subscriber information,
• Account registration data,
• Payment-related information.

Yet access to connection logs (IP addresses and source ports) is conditional upon the existence of “serious criminal offenses,” as required by Article L. 34-1, II bis, 3° CPCE. This threshold creates interpretative uncertainties, as demonstrated by recent case law.

II – Typology of online anonymization strategies

Identifying offenders online involves varying degrees of complexity:

1. Use of real identity: Rare and easily traceable.
2. Pseudonym with real data: Requires platform cooperation.
3. Pseudonym with fake data: Necessitates IP address to cross-reference with ISP records.
4. Advanced anonymization (VPN, TOR): Identification becomes technically improbable without real-time surveillance or source port data.

The IP address is often the only viable path to traceability—yet it is precisely the element least accessible under civil jurisdiction.

III – Case law analysis: Meta vs. Telegram

In the case involving Meta (CA Paris, 10 Sept. 2024, n° 23/16504), the Court denied access to IP addresses based on the proportionality principle and the perceived minor gravity of the identity theft. Meta’s defense—claiming non-possession of certain data—further underscores the inadequacy of enforcement mechanisms, especially where platforms fail to collect or retain relevant information.

Conversely, in the Telegram case (TJ Paris, 12 Nov. 2024, n° 24/57625), the judge ordered disclosure of all relevant data, including IP addresses, in response to a blackmail attempt. The decision bypassed the gravity requirement, focusing instead on the necessity of the measure to halt ongoing criminal behavior.

These cases reveal a dangerous inconsistency in judicial interpretation, leading to legal unpredictability and selective access to justice.

IV – Legal uncertainty and the challenge of enforcement

While the LCEN (Law for Trust in the Digital Economy, Art. 6, V) imposes a mandatory data retention obligation on hosts and ISPs, the 2021 decree is interpreted by platforms like Meta as optional in nature. This legal ambiguity undermines enforcement and shifts the burden onto victims, who are forced to navigate Kafkaesque procedures.

Moreover, a victim cannot even obtain proof that their own stolen data is misused, as access to IP logs is categorically denied in most civil contexts.

Conclusion and strategic insights

Access to online identification data remains structurally unbalanced, favoring anonymity over redress, particularly for civil victims. The current framework, riddled with procedural thresholds and vague terminology, fails to uphold the fundamental right of access to justice. A legislative clarification is urgently needed, alongside a stricter enforcement of data collection duties by platforms.

Dreyfus Law Firm advises and represents clients in complex cross-border matters involving digital rights enforcement, online reputation, and intermediary liability.

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

Nathalie Dreyfus

FAQ

Genuine use of a European Union trademark (EUTM) is a fundamental condition for maintaining the rights granted by its registration. In its judgment of 5 March 2025 (Case T-118/24), the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) clarified the scope of this notion, as well as the EUIPO’s obligation to provide special motivation. This article outlines the legal framework and practical implications of the ruling for trademark holders and IP professionals.

Genuine use of an EU trademark : legal framework and key issues

The rights attached to an EU trademark (EUTM), governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, are conditional upon its use. If the trademark is not put to genuine use within five years of registration, it may be revoked (Art. 58(1)(a)).

Use is considered genuine when it is effective, actual, and consistent with market practices. It must go beyond merely token use and must not be designed solely to preserve the registration. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Sunrider/OHIM (C-416/04) confirmed that even limited use may qualify as genuine if it reflects the commercial reality of the relevant market.

Accepted forms of evidence include :

• Invoices and purchase orders
• Advertising materials
• Screenshots from websites and social media
• Documents showing the trademark affixed to products or packaging

The use must take place within the EU and relate to the goods or services actually registered.

The EUIPO’s obligation to provide a special motivation

Under Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the EUIPO must issue clear, complete and comprehensible justification for its decisions. This requirement serves two purposes :

• To enable the parties to understand and, if necessary, challenge the decision
• To allow the Union courts to exercise judicial review over its legality

A failure to provide proper reasoning may result in  the decision being overturned, especially where the Board of Appeal overlooks key arguments or fails to substantiate its conclusions based on the evidence submitted.

General Court Judgment of 5 March 2025 (T-118/24) : background and significance

In this case, revocation proceedings were initiated against an EUTM registered in Class 14 (jewellery). The EUIPO partially rejected the application, finding that genuine use had been established for certain goods. The applicant then appealed to the General Court, arguing :

• That the evidence submitted did not establish genuine use
• That the EUIPO failed to provide adequate reasoning

a) Evidence of use

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s assessment. Genuine use was demonstrated by :

• 112 invoices, including 64 for Class 14 products
• Screenshots of advertisements on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter
• A commercial presentation of the trademark on the owner’s website

Even though the trademark was not physically affixed to the products, these materials were sufficient to demonstrate a link between the mark and the commercialisation of the goods. The Court reaffirmed that the volume of sales must be assessed in context : low sales figures may still indicate genuine use where the products are expensive or niche.

b) Export-only use

Regarding sales outside the EU, the Court recalled the strict requirement of Article 18(1)(b) : the mark must appear on the products or packaging when used solely for export purposes.

In this case, however, most evidence related to use within the EU. As such, the EUIPO’s failure to assess the export-related requirement had no bearing on the outcome.

c) Alleged lack of reasoning

The applicant further argued that the EUIPO had failed to :

• Explain how the evidence established use within the EU despite being linked to exports
• Address the claim that the mark had only been used for retail services (Class 35)

The Court dismissed both arguments :

• The retail services argument had not been raised during the EUIPO proceedings and could not be invoked for the first time on appeal
• Any lack of reasoning on export-related evidence was immaterial, as genuine use within the EU had been amply demonstrated

Practical takeaways for trademark holders

This judgment underscores key compliance requirements for maintaining EUTM rights :

• Maintain detailed documentation : invoices, marketing materials, and digital records can collectively establish a pattern of genuine use
• Ensure EU relevance : use must be traceable to the internal market
• Tailor your evidentiary strategy to the market : in luxury or high-value sectors, a small number of sales may suffice if consistent with industry norms

The ruling also sends a clear message to the EUIPO : decisions must be reasoned with precision, particularly when assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

Conclusion

Judgment T-118/24 reinforces two core principles in EU trademark law : a demanding yet contextual interpretation of genuine use, and the requirement of special motivations.

For trademark owners, this is a reminder to anticipate non-use challenges by systematically gathering and preserving use-related evidence. For IP practitioners, the case highlights the strategic value of invoking a failure to state reasons, although such a flaw will only be decisive where it materially affects the outcome.

Key takeaway : To preserve their rights, EUTM owners must demonstrate genuine economic use within the EU. At the same time, all EUIPO decisions must be properly reasoned to ensure effective judicial protection.

Dreyfus & associés advises clients in the preparation of relevant evidence of use, as well as in managing proceedings before the EUIPO and European courts. With in-depth experience in trademark law, the firm provides strategic support at every stage to secure intellectual property rights and anticipate litigation risks.

Dreyfus & associés is partnered with a global network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property law.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ 

Co-ownership of patents or trademarks often arises in collaborative innovation, particularly among inventors, business partners, or startup co-founders. While common, this legal arrangement entails a number of significant legal and strategic complexities especially when one co-owner seeks to transfer their share without informing the other.

A recent ruling issued by the Paris Judicial Court on 7 February 2025 clarifies the obligations of co-owners in the context of IP right transfers. The decision reinforces the importance of legal formalism and notification procedures. This article analyses the practical and legal consequences of such transfers, along with strategic guidance for rights holders.

Legal framework for IP co-ownership

Patent co-ownership: transfer regulations

Article L. 613-29 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC) allows a patent co-owner to transfer their share at any time. However, other co-owners benefit from a statutory right of first refusal, exercisable within three months of receiving formal notification by means of a bailiff’s act.

This requirement is further reinforced by Article 815-14 of the French Civil Code, which obliges the transferring party to disclose essential information: the proposed sale price, terms, and identity of the prospective buyer.

Trademark co-ownership: legal constraints and duties

Although less strictly codified than patent co-ownership, trademark co-ownership is recognized under Article L. 712-1 IPC. In the absence of a prior agreement between co-owners, the unilateral sale of a share without notification or consent may be deemed wrongful particularly if it deprives the other co-owner of financial rights or commercial opportunities.

The “Ares Trailer” case (Paris Judicial Court, 7 February 2025)

Background and key facts

In case number RG 21/07225, the Paris Judicial Court adjudicated a dispute between two co-inventors of a trailer system, who jointly owned a patent, a design, and a trademark registered under the name “Ares Trailer.” One of the co-owners transferred all IP rights to a third-party company without notifying the other, and the assignment documents were later found to contain a forged signature.

Key takeaways from the decision

The Court declared the contested assignments null and void due to lack of consent, emphasizing that even a lawful transfer of a share requires prior notification of the other co-owner.

However, the acquiring company escaped liability due to its good faith, as recognised under the doctrine of appearance. The co-owner who executed the transfer was ordered to pay €17,500 in damages for moral and financial harm caused to the other co-owner.

Legal risks of unilateral transfers without notification

Failing to comply with co-ownership rules regarding notification exposes the transferring party to significant legal risk, including:

• Annulment of the transfer, especially where consent is lacking or the transaction is tainted by fraud;
• Civil liability for breaching co-ownership obligations;
• Loss of revenues or commercial opportunities for the other co-owner;
• Litigation that may be prolonged, costly, and publicly damaging.

While a good-faith purchaser may retain the rights acquired, the assignor remains liable for having disregarded their legal obligations.

Best practices for managing IP co-ownership

To ensure compliance and mitigate risk, we recommend that co-owners of patents or trademarks:

• Formally notify all co-owners of any proposed transfer or licensing arrangement;
• Draft a comprehensive co-ownership agreement specifying procedures for transfer, licensing, and dispute resolution;
• Conduct a full review of title history and rights transfers prior to acquiring an interest in co-owned IP;
• Seek legal counsel proactively when contemplating any transaction affecting shared rights.

Conclusion

The co-ownership of intellectual property rights requires careful legal governance. The failure to notify other co-owners prior to a transfer even a partial one can lead to nullity of the transaction and potential damages. The “Ares Trailer” case provides a compelling precedent that reinforces the necessity of transparency, legal precision, and proactive planning when managing co-owned IP assets.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ