News

Introduction

In a context marked by increasingly stringent requirements regarding the protection of personal data, the management of information relating to domain name registrants is undergoing significant developments. The current practice of masking WHOIS data forms part of this trend, but it is not without raising certain concerns. Indeed, it appears to be in tension with the principle of transparency historically upheld by ICANN. A question therefore remains: is the anonymization of domain name holders truly compatible with the rules governing the domain name system?

What is WHOIS and why is it essential?

WHOIS is a distributed registration data system that enables the identification of domain name registrants. It contains key information such as the registrant’s identity and contact details, the registrar, and the domain name’s registration and expiry dates.

Historically, this system is grounded in a core ICANN principle: transparency. This principle ensures the balanced functioning of the domain name ecosystem by, in particular:

• Enabling the traceability of rights holders
• Ensuring the effectiveness of protection and dispute resolution mechanisms

In practice, WHOIS operates as a regulatory tool, maintaining a balance between the freedom to register domain names and the accountability of registrants.

The ICANN framework: transparency and registrar obligations

The framework established by ICANN aims to ensure the reliability, accessibility, and transparency of domain name registration data. Under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registrars are required to collect and maintain accurate, complete, and verifiable registrant information, within the limits imposed by the GDPR, and to implement mechanisms allowing access to such data under regulated conditions, particularly in the context of administrative or judicial proceedings.

Beyond these obligations, the system is based on a fundamental principle: registrant accountability. The registration of a domain name implies that its holder can be identified and held responsible for its use. This identifiability is essential for the effective exercise of third-party rights, whether to issue notices, initiate UDRP proceedings, or enforce decisions.

From a technical standpoint, WHOIS operationalises ICANN’s regulatory model by ensuring traceability of domain name holders.

Anonymised WHOIS: how it works and potential abuses

Since the entry into force of the GDPR on 25 May 2018, numerous registrars have adopted a particularly cautious approach to the management of WHOIS data, especially where such data relates to natural persons, leading in practice to a largely systematic anonymization, often applied by default.

In this context, they have progressively adjusted their practices in order to reconcile personal data protection requirements with the historical transparency obligations of the WHOIS system. This evolution has resulted in a restriction of public access to identifying data, as well as in the development of technical masking solutions.

Masked WHOIS data rely on privacy or proxy services offered by registrars, whereby the registrant’s details are replaced with those of an anonymisation service provider. As a result, identifying information is concealed, and a third party appears as the point of contact, rendering the registrant’s identity only indirectly accessible.

While this evolution reflects legitimate data protection concerns, it has directly impacted the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms. It complicates the identification of registrants, delays dispute resolution, and hinders domain name recovery actions, while facilitating abusive practices such as phishing, counterfeiting, and typosquatting.

In practice, anonymised WHOIS increasingly operates as a concealment tool, departing from the transparency-based logic historically underpinning the DNS. This results in a form of over-compliance, where data protection effectively prevails over accessibility requirements, thereby weakening a core element of ICANN’s regulatory model.

For further information regarding the fraudulent uses of domain names, we invite you to consult our previously published article.

Reconciling data protection (GDPR) with ICANN transparency requirements

The widespread use of anonymised WHOIS highlights a structural tension requiring a balancing of competing interests: on the one hand, the protection of personal data, and on the other, the need for transparency and registrant identifiability.

In this context, mechanisms have emerged to reconcile these objectives, most notably differentiated access models.

Although WHOIS data are no longer publicly accessible, they may be disclosed to parties demonstrating a legitimate interest, particularly in contentious contexts. This model, commonly referred to as “gated Whois,” seeks to preserve data confidentiality while ensuring the effective enforcement of rights.

This development is rooted in the ICANN Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (2018), adopted in response to the GDPR. This framework reshaped access to WHOIS data by establishing anonymisation by default while organising controlled access mechanisms.

A practical illustration of this system can be found in UDRP proceedings. Upon the filing of a complaint, the dispute resolution provider requests a registrar verification, enabling the identification of the underlying registrant despite anonymised WHOIS data.

However, outside such structured mechanisms, access to registration data remains fragmented and largely dependent on registrar practices. Disclosure conditions and response times vary significantly, limiting effectiveness, particularly in situations requiring urgent action.

Conclusion

The reconciliation between GDPR requirements and the need for access to registration data does not depend solely on regulatory texts, but on the implementation of reliable operational mechanisms ensuring proportionate, secure, and effective access.

Failing this, there is a risk of entrenching a system in which legitimate data protection concerns undermine the effectiveness of regulatory tools and the enforcement of rights.

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

Dreyfus law firm 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. Can WHOIS data qualify as personal data?
Yes, as long as they enable the identification of a natural person, they fall within the scope of the GDPR.

2. Does the GDPR require full anonymisation of WHOIS data?
No, the GDPR requires the protection of personal data, but does not mandate systematic anonymisation. This is often the result of a cautious interpretation by those involved.

3. Are WHOIS data always accurate?
They are required to be. Registrars have a contractual obligation to collect and maintain accurate and up-to-date data, even if such data are not publicly accessible.

4. Can WHOIS data be obtained outside UDRP proceedings?
Yes, through disclosure requests. However, outcomes depend on registrar practices and the assessment of the asserted legitimate interest.

5. Can a UDRP proceeding be initiated without knowing the registrant’s identity?
WHOIS anonymization does not prevent filing a UDRP complaint. The complaint can be brought against an “unknown” registrant or a privacy service, it being specified that the registrar will disclose the underlying registrant’s identity during the proceedings.

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

The Fauré Le Page judgment (CJEU, 26 March 2026, Case C-412/24) is in line with one of the fundamental principles of trademark law, according to which a trademark must not be misleading. The Court clarifies, in this judgment, the conditions under which a company may rely, in connection with its trademark, on a historical heritage. Its analysis is not limited to the mere material characteristics of the goods or services covered by the specification, but also extends to the intangible attributes associated with them, such as prestige, image, or know-how

Understanding historical heritage claims in trademark law

A heritage claim consists, for a business, in presenting itself as the continuation of a historic house or long-standing know-how. This positioning typically relies on several structuring elements, such as asserting an early founding date or highlighting a claimed continuity (name, activity, clientele, expertise).

Particularly common in the luxury, leather goods, and fashion sectors, this strategy serves as a powerful tool for trademark differentiation and value enhancement.

From a legal perspective, however, such practices require heightened scrutiny, as they may give rise to a risk of misleading the public. Until now, case law remained uncertain as to the level of scrutiny applicable to such claims.

Facts of the Fauré Le Page case

The trademark “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” refers to a parisian house founded in the 18th century, historically specialized in arms manufacturing before later shifting to leather goods. The original company was dissolved in 1992. In 2009, a new company acquired the trademark and presented itself as the heir of that historic house, without having continued its activity.

The competing company Goyard challenged the legitimacy of the reference “Paris 1717”. The French Supreme Court stayed proceedings and referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, concerning the interpretation of misleadingness under Directive 2008/95/EC on trademarks, which, although subsequently repealed and replaced by Directive (EU) 2015/2436 , remained applicable to the dispute ratione temporis having regard to the date of the facts: can a trademark be considered misleading because it gives a false impression of the company’s history, even though the product itself is not misleading?

What is the CJEU’s position?

The Court first sets out a principle: misleadingness under Directive 2008/95/EC must, in principle, relate to the characteristics of the goods or services, and not to those of the trademark proprietor itself.

However, it immediately acknowledges an exception: information relating to the undertaking in question, in this case, a claimed length of service, may indirectly influence the perception of a product characteristic, provided that the consumer infers a certain level of quality or prestige from it.

The Court also explicitly includes intangible elements such as prestige, brand image and know-how within the concept of a product’s ‘quality’. The Court thus notes that, in the luxury sector, quality is not limited solely to the material characteristics of the product, but also includes its image and the prestige associated with it, as held in the Copad judgment (CJEU, 23 April 2009, C-59/08).

Consequently, the reference to a fictitious history, suggesting ancestral know-how, is likely to constitute a misleading indication as to an essential characteristic of the product.

Finally, the Court emphasizes the importance of a concrete assessment of the perception of the relevant public, which falls within the sovereign appraisal of national courts. It is for them to determine whether the date at issue is actually perceived as a founding date and whether it conveys an impression of longstanding know-how influencing purchasing decisions. This assessment must be global and take into account the combination of elements forming the trademark, as well as the specificities of the economic sector concerned.

Implications for businesses and trademark owners

An unfounded claim of prior use may constitute both grounds for cancelling the trademark and an element constituting misleading conduct.

In this regard, the Court draws a clear distinction between:

• The legitimate takeover of a business or trade, involving genuine continuity;

• The opportunistic reappropriation of a historic name, lacking any economic basis.

In this case, the company Fauré Le Page, established in 2009, had not continued the business of the former company, which had been dissolved in 1992. The acquisition of the trademark therefore did not confer upon it the right to claim the seniority of the original company.

In this context, companies must strictly regulate the storytelling of their trademarks, by verifying the historical accuracy of their communications, documenting any heritage claims, and avoiding any ambiguous wording that could be misleading.

Conclusion

In this judgment, the Court of Justice endorses a broad interpretation of misleadingness in trademark law, by recognizing that the assessment of the quality of a good or service no longer depends solely on its material and objective characteristics but may also depend on intangible factors such as image or prestige. It thus opens the door to increased scrutiny of historical storytelling strategies where they rely on inaccurate or misleading elements.

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

Dreyfus law firm 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

Does the Fauré Le Page judgment only concern trademarks including a date?
No, if the date “1717” is central to the case, the scope of the judgment is broader. The CJEU focuses on the consistency between commercial communication and economic reality. Any reference to longevity, whether through a date, expressions such as “founded in…” or “since…”, or historical narratives in a name or slogan, may be subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Does this judgment call into question trademarks that have been registered and used for many years?
Potentially, yes. A trademark may be declared invalid ab initio, even years after registration, if it is found to be misleading. The judgment does not create a new ground for invalidity but clarifies the interpretation of an existing one.

What is meant in practice by “genuine economic continuity”?
The concept is not exhaustively defined by the Court, but certain indicators can be identified: the actual transfer of the business, the retention of identifiable know-how, or the takeover of an established customer base. Conversely, the mere acquisition of a name or a trademark without any underlying business activity is not sufficient.

Does this judgment also apply to small businesses claiming a long-standing family history?
Yes, no exemption is provided based on company size. However, in practice, the risk of challenge is higher where the claim is prominently used for commercial purposes, particularly in sectors where longevity constitutes a key selling point.

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

Plant innovation now holds a strategic position at the intersection of agriculture, food security, and climate transition. Plant breeding, biotechnologies, genome editing, and input optimization all rely on substantial investments, long development cycles, and a highly competitive global environment.

When discussing intellectual property in the plant sector, the immediate reflex is often to think of patents. However, this perception is reductive. In practice, the protection of plant innovations relies on a set of complementary rights, whose interplay is essential.

For breeders, seed producers, and agri-tech players, true value does not lie in a single right, but in the ability to build a coherent protection framework. This approach makes it possible to cover not only the variety itself, but also the technologies, uses, and commercial applications surrounding it.

What intellectual property rights apply to the plant sector?

Plant variety rights: protection of biological creation

Plant variety rights form the foundation of protection for plant innovations. Under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, the breeder is granted an exclusive right allowing them to “produce, reproduce, offer for sale, sell, export or import” propagating material of the protected variety.

This exclusive right is not limited to the initial variety. It also extends to essentially derived varieties, significantly strengthening the scope of protection.

The granting of protection is based on internationally harmonised criteria established by the UPOV Convention. A variety must be:

• novelty,
• distinctness,
• uniformity,
• stablility.

These requirements reflect a biological logic specific to the sector, distinct from patent law criteria.

To learn more about plant variety rights and filing procedures, we invite you to consult the dedicated article available on our blog.

However, this regime has a structural limitation: it protects only the variety itself. It does not cover technical processes or intangible elements related to its commercialisation. This limitation explains the need for additional legal tools.

Patents: a strictly regulated technical protection

Patents apply in the plant sector solely to protect technical innovations. They may cover microbiological processes, genetic modification techniques, or biotechnological tools.

The scope of patent protection in this field has been significantly clarified by the decision G 3/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (14 May 2020), known as “Pepper II.”

In this decision, the EPO confirmed that plants obtained exclusively by essentially biological processes are not patentable. This case law restricts the use of patents for innovations derived from conventional breeding and reinforces the central role of Plant Variety Rights.

As a result, the two systems are complementary but not interchangeable.

In practice, this dual framework requires a strategic approach. An innovation resulting from genetic engineering may be protected by a patent, while the resulting variety must be protected through a Plant Variety Right. A lack of coordination between these protections can significantly weaken the rights holder’s position.

We invite you to consult our article on the simultaneous filing of a plant variety right and a patent, to help you determine the most appropriate strategy.

Trademarks: a strategic tool for commercial value

A trademark grants its owner an exclusive right to prevent the use of identical or similar signs.

It operates at a different level: commercialisation. A trademark protects a distinctive sign identifying the origin of goods. Unlike plant variety rights, it does not cover the plant itself but its positioning on the market.

Let’s take a well-known example: Pink Lady, which is not a botanical apple variety. The actual variety is called Cripps Pink. Pink Lady is a trademark used to market certain apples that meet a specific set of requirements.

This means that multiple producers can grow the Cripps Pink variety, but only those who comply with the trademark’s conditions are allowed to sell their apples under the name Pink Lady.

This clearly shows that a trademark primarily serves to organize the commercialization of a product. It does not protect the plant itself. This distinction is essential, as the same variety can be exploited by several operators, but only some of them will be able to use a given trademark.

Design rights: protecting aesthetic aspects

Additional tools may complement this framework, particularly design rights, defined under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. These rights protect the appearance of products or their packaging, especially in the ornamental plant sector.

They serve as a useful complement to other rights when an aesthetic aspect is emphasized.

Why is a multidimensional strategy essential for protecting plant varieties?

The effectiveness of an intellectual property strategy lies in the ability to coordinate these different rights coherently. Each tool protects a specific dimension of innovation, and their combination ensures comprehensive protection.

Plant Variety Rights secure control over the variety. Patents protect technical processes. Trademarks structure commercial positioning and enhance perceived value, although they do not protect the plant itself.

This cumulative approach creates a highly effective legal barrier, enabling not only the protection of innovation but also the structuring of its economic exploitation.

Legal limits and balancing mechanisms to anticipate

Plant Variety Rights are designed to strike a balance between protecting innovation and preserving the dynamics of the agricultural sector. Even when a variety is protected, the rights holder does not benefit from absolute exclusivity.

• The breeder’s exemption allows third parties to use a protected variety to develop new ones, ensuring the continuity of innovation.
• Similarly, the farmer’s privilege permits, under certain conditions, the reuse of harvested material as seed for subsequent crops. This reflects the economic realities of agricultural practices.

These mechanisms demonstrate the legislator’s intention to reconcile the interests of breeders, farmers, and the market.

Conversely, patent law generally provides stricter protection, with fewer exceptions of this kind. In particular:

• there is, in principle, no automatic equivalent to the breeder’s exemption: the use of a patented invention for the purpose of developing new varieties may require authorization from the right holder;
• the farmer’s privilege does not apply to patented inventions, which may restrict the reuse of harvested material when it incorporates a protected technology;
• the scope of a patent may extend not only to the initial product, but also to certain derived products or uses, thereby strengthening the holder’s control over the value chain.

This difference highlights the importance of a strategic approach to identify precisely what is protected, what may be used by third parties, and to anticipate the resulting economic implications.

Conclusion

Plant innovations cannot be effectively protected through a single legal mechanism. The diversity of protectable elements requires a multidimensional approach, combining Plant Variety Rights, patents, trademarks, and, where appropriate, design rights.

Such a strategy secures the entire value chain, from research to commercialisation, and constitutes a decisive competitive advantage for stakeholders in the sector.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex issues related to plant variety rights by offering tailored advice and comprehensive operational support for the implementation and optimization of protection strategies that incorporate all intellectual property tools (plant variety certificates, patents, trademarks, and know-how).

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Does a protected variety become freely usable after PVR expiration?

Yes, it generally enters the public domain. However, other rights, such as patents or trademarks, may still restrict its use.

2. What is the duration of protection for the different rights?

PVR protection lasts 25 to 30 years, patents last 20 years, and trademarks can be renewed indefinitely every 10 years.

3. What protection is most suitable for new genomic techniques?

These innovations typically require a combined approach: patent protection for the technical aspect and PVR for the variety.

4. What are the risks of a poorly designed IP strategy?

An incomplete strategy may lead to loss of control, legal obstacles, or reduced economic value.

5. Are farm-saved seeds compatible with IP rights?

Yes, but only within the strict framework of the farmer’s privilege, which regulates this practice.

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

When a company purchases smartphones, computers, tablets or storage media, it may, often unknowingly, bear a private copying levy included in the price of such equipment. However, this mechanism is intended to compensate copies made by individuals for their personal use, not strictly professional uses.

This raises a practical question: in which situations must a company bear this cost, and when may it instead be exempt or entitled to reimbursement ? Answering this requires an understanding of the system, the stakeholders involved, and the applicable formalities.

This article provides a practical overview of private copying in a business context: its legal basis, the relevant obligations, exemption and reimbursement mechanisms, and the risks associated with improper compliance.

Understanding private copying and its legal framework

Private copying is an exception to copyright provided for under Article L.122-5 (2) of the French Intellectual Property Code. It allows the reproduction of a protected work without prior authorization from the rights holder, provided that such reproduction is made for strictly personal use and from a lawful source.

The requirement of a lawful source, stemming from EU law and confirmed by case law (CJEU, April 10, 2014, ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie, Case C-435/12), means that the work must have been lawfully obtained. In other words, the private copying exception does not cover reproductions made from unlawful sources, such as unauthorized downloads or illegal streaming services.

In return, the legislator has established a compensation mechanism for rights holders : the private copying levy (Articles L.311-1 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code). The rationale is that where the law permits certain private reproductions without authorization, rights holders must receive fair compensation.

The applicable tariffs are set by the private copying Commission, an administrative body composed of representatives of rights holders, manufacturers and consumers.

This levy is not paid directly by individuals. It is collected upstream on certain recording devices and storage media and incorporated into their sale price. This applies, depending on the case, to equipment such as smartphones, tablets, hard drives and USB drives. In practice, manufacturers, importers or entities placing such products on the market declare and pay the levy, which is then passed on to the end purchaser (as recalled by the Paris Judicial Court, June 7, 2022, No. 15/14150, paras. 13–14).

This explains why businesses may be affected: even when acquiring media for strictly professional use, they may bear a levy originally designed to compensate private copying by individuals.

Accordingly, it is essential to determine precisely which businesses are concerned by this mechanism. Depending on whether they manufacture, import, acquire or distribute recording media, companies do not occupy the same position within the system and are not subject to the same obligations.

Who is affected by private copying in a business context?

In practice, three categories of stakeholders may be distinguished:

• entities placing recording media on the market
• distributors involved in the supply chain
• companies using such media for professional purposes

These categories are not affected in the same way. The first group may, depending on their role, be subject to reporting obligations and to payment of the private copying levy. The second group may pass on the cost along the distribution chain without necessarily being the primary debtor. Finally, user companies are not, in principle, directly liable for the levy, but may indirectly bear its cost when purchasing equipment or media intended for strictly professional use.

This distinction is therefore crucial, both for identifying applicable obligations and for assessing eligibility for exemption or reimbursement.

Reporting, payment and supporting documentation: what are the obligations?

Obligations relating to the private copying levy primarily fall on entities placing recording media on the market, notably manufacturers, importers and entities making intra-Community acquisitions.

Manufacturers and importers must submit periodic declarations to Copie France, the body responsible for collecting the levy. These declarations concern the quantities of media placed on the French market.

This entails several requirements, including accurate identification of the relevant media, reliable and consistent reporting, and robust traceability of volumes marketed, enabling verification of the data provided to competent authorities at any time.

Compliance therefore goes beyond mere payment. It requires a structured internal organization, including:

• procedures for monitoring purchases and sales
• documentation of usage
• the ability to substantiate declarations in the event of an audit

Failure to declare or inaccuracies may result in significant adjustments.

Distributors and intermediaries, where they are not themselves placing products on the market, are in principle not subject to direct reporting or payment obligations. However, they may pass on the cost of the levy within the commercial chain, which requires clear identification of the relevant products in invoicing.

User companies are not, in principle, liable for the levy. Their main concern lies in retaining supporting documentation where they intend to apply for an exemption or reimbursement, particularly in cases of strictly professional use or export.

How to obtain an exemption or a refund?

The French system, notably Article L.311-8 of the Intellectual Property Code, provides mechanisms enabling professionals to reduce or neutralize the financial impact of the levy.

Where a company is not intended to ultimately bear the levy, two options may be considered: prior exemption and subsequent reimbursement.

Exemption is based on agreements concluded with collecting societies (such as ADAMI, SPEDIDAM or SACD) and allows, in certain cases, the levy not to be applied at the time of acquisition, particularly where the media are intended for strictly professional use. In practice, this requires entering into an agreement with Copie France, which defines the applicable conditions.

In the absence of prior exemption, companies may seek reimbursement of amounts already paid.

To do so, the company must be able to produce detailed purchase invoices, identify the relevant media, and demonstrate either their professional use or, where applicable, their export or delivery outside France.

The issue is primarily evidentiary. In the absence of sufficient supporting documentation, exemption or reimbursement claims are likely to be rejected. Companies are therefore advised to implement robust tracking of purchases, flows and uses in order to secure their claims and avoid unduly bearing the levy.

What are the risks of non-compliance?

Failure to comply with obligations relating to private copying exposes companies to multiple cumulative risks.

The financial risk is immediate : pursuant to Article L.335-4 of the Intellectual Property Code, failure to declare or under-declaration may lead to recovery of unpaid levies together with penalties.

In addition, disputes with collecting bodies may result in complex litigation, requiring significant internal resources.

Finally, reputational risk should not be underestimated. In an environment where regulatory compliance is a key indicator of credibility, failure may have lasting consequences for a company’s image.

Conclusion

Although originally designed to address private uses by individuals, the private copying levy has tangible implications for businesses. Depending on their position in the supply chain or the use of acquired media, companies may bear the cost, be subject to formal obligations, or be entitled to exemption or reimbursement.

The issue is therefore legal, operational and financial: identifying the applicable regime, securing relevant flows and gathering appropriate supporting documentation.

In this context, a proactive approach is essential. Entering into an agreement with Copie France upstream may secure an exemption, while a thorough analysis of purchases, uses and exports may enable recovery of unduly paid amounts.

Dreyfus & Associés assists clients with all issues relating to private copying, including the implementation of agreements for exemption, assessment of their situation, eligibility for reimbursement, and support in preparing and managing claims before Copie France.

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Does private copying apply to content from streaming platforms?
Private copying does not generally apply to streaming content. It may only be invoked where an actual reproduction is made for strictly private use, from a lawful source, and within legal limits. Mere access to streaming content does not confer a general right to download or record it.

2. Can a company challenge the amount of the private copying levy?
Yes, in certain situations, particularly in cases of misclassification of media or disagreement regarding declared volumes. This requires prior legal and technical analysis.

3. Are refurbished or second-hand devices subject to the levy?
Refurbished devices may be subject to the levy, particularly for categories expressly covered (e.g. refurbished mobile phones or tablets), which are included in the list published by Copie France. Specific tariff decisions also apply. By contrast, purely second-hand goods are not, in principle, subject to the levy again upon resale.

4. Is there a time limit for requesting reimbursement?
Yes. In the absence of a specific limitation period, reimbursement claims are generally subject to the standard five-year limitation period. It is therefore advisable to act promptly and retain all supporting documentation.

5. Does private copying apply to professional data stored in the cloud?
Private copying concerns reproductions of protected works made from a lawful source for strictly personal use. It does not, as such, apply to the mere storage of professional data in the cloud.

This publication provides general guidance and highlights certain issues. It is not intended to address specific situations or constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Naming refers to the practice of assigning a name or trademark to a place, building, or facility, often within a commercial or partnership framework (for example, giving a company’s name to a stadium or a venue). This practice has become a genuine strategic tool for both companies and public authorities.

However, when it involves an architectural work protected by copyright, it raises legal issues, particularly with regard to the architect’s moral and economic rights.

The decision rendered by the Toulon Judicial Court on September 4, 2025 provides important guidance on these matters. It clarifies the conditions under which an architect may oppose a naming operation and defines the limits of their right to remuneration.

Understanding copyright issues related to naming

From a legal standpoint, naming generally fall within sponsorship or commercial communication agreements.

However, when a building or space constitutes a work protected by copyright, particularly in the field of architecture, the naming operation may interact with the rights of the author.

Under the provisions of the French Intellectual Property Code (Articles L.111-1 et seq.), the author enjoys a set of exclusive rights divided into two categories:

• Moral rights, which are linked to the author’s personality and protect the author’s name, authorship, and the integrity of the work;
• Economic rights, which allow the author to control the commercial exploitation of the work.

The central question is therefore whether naming is likely to infringe the author’s rights or, on the contrary, constitutes a lawful form of exploitation of the work.

The facts: a dispute over stadium naming rights and the architect’s compensation

A contract anticipating the possibility of naming

The case concerns a stadium designed by an architect as part of a renovation project. During the construction process, the architect entered into a contract with the sports club operating the stadium.

The contract included a specific clause anticipating the possibility of a future naming agreement, a practice increasingly used to finance sports infrastructures.

However, the possibility of naming was subject to several conditions:

• The change of the stadium’s name must not distort the architectural work
• Compensation linked to the author’s economic rights should be negotiated in good faith
• In the event of disagreement, a judicial expert assessment could be requested to determine the compensation and assess the visual impact of the modifications.

A disagreement regarding compensation and modifications

When the club eventually concluded a naming agreement with a commercial partner, a dispute arose between the parties.

The club offered the architect an annual compensation.

The architect, however, argued that the commercial exploitation of the stadium’s name benefited from his architectural work and therefore claimed:

• 25% of the net revenues generated by the naming agreement
• The right to design the stadium’s signage himself

He maintained that any visual modification of the façade could affect the identity of the architectural work and should therefore require his approval.

Faced with this disagreement, the stadium operators brought the case before the Toulon Judicial Court  in order to determine the architect’s compensation and clarify the respective rights of the parties.

The legal questions raised before the Toulon Judicial Court

The court had to address two key questions:

1. Could the architect rely on his moral rights to oppose the stadium naming operation?
2. Did the naming agreement constitute an exploitation of the work entitling the architect to compensation under copyright law?

These questions are central in the application of copyright law to architecture, as they determine the balance between protecting creative works and enabling the economic exploitation of infrastructures.

The decision of the Toulon Judicial Court of September 4, 2025

A limitation of moral rights when naming has been accepted

The court first examined the issue of the architect’s moral rights.

It recalled a fundamental principle of copyright law: moral rights allow the author to oppose any infringement of the integrity of the work.

However, the court noted that the architect had expressly accepted in the original contract the principle of a future naming agreement.

In these circumstances, the court held that the architect could not rely on his moral rights to oppose the naming operation itself, unless it affected the integrity or spirit of the work.

No exploitation of the work under copyright law

The court then addressed the issue of economic rights.

It held that naming does not in itself constitute an exploitation of the architectural work within the meaning of copyright law.

Indeed, the naming operation primarily relates to:

• A sponsorship agreement
• A commercial communication strategy
• The promotion of the name of a place

Naming concerns the association between a trademark and a location rather than the reproduction or representation of the architectural work itself.

As a result, copyright law does not automatically entitle the architect to compensation derived from naming revenues.

The determination of contractual compensation

Ultimately, the court fixed the architect’s compensation at €25,000 per year, based on the contractual provisions binding the parties.

The decision thus emphasizes that financial compensation linked to naming primarily depends on the contractual agreement concluded between the parties.

The implications of the decision for naming agreements

This decision provides two important clarifications for naming practices:

• First, moral rights protect the integrity of the work but do not allow the author to oppose a naming operation that has been contractually accepted.
• Second, naming is not considered an exploitation of the work under copyright law, meaning that the author does not automatically benefit from financial participation in naming revenues.

Practical lessons for industry stakeholders

For public authorities, sports clubs, and investors, this decision highlights the importance of anticipating naming operations from a legal perspective at the earliest stage of a project.

Several best practices can be identified:

• Explicitly provide for the possibility of naming in the original contract
• Regulate potential visual modifications to the building or infrastructure
• Clarify the conditions of compensation, if any

The essential point is that these issues should be addressed contractually from the outset.

To learn more about the importance of contractual anticipation, we invite you to consult our dedicated page.

Conclusion

The decision of the Judicial Court of Toulon of September 4, 2025 represents an important reference regarding the interaction between naming practices and copyright law in architecture.

For public and private stakeholders, this case law highlights the need to anticipate legal issues related to naming in architectural and operational contracts.

A well-structured naming agreement helps prevent disputes between authors and operators, secure commercial investments, and preserve the integrity of architectural works.

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. Is naming a public building compatible with the architect’s copyright?
Yes. Naming can be compatible with copyright provided it does not affect the integrity of the architectural work and the author’s rights are respected, particularly when these issues have been anticipated contractually.

2. Can a naming agreement affect the image or reputation of the architect?
Potentially. If the association between the building and a commercial trademark alters the spirit or perception of the work, questions relating to the author’s moral rights may arise.

3. Can naming be challenged several years after the construction of a building?
Yes, if the naming operation infringes the author’s rights or breaches the original contractual commitments. However, the possibility of bringing an action will depend on the circumstances and contractual arrangements.

4. Can naming have consequences for the protection of the sponsor’s trademark?
Yes. The sponsor must ensure that its trademark is properly protected and registered and that its use within the naming arrangement is contractually regulated. The long-term association of a trademark with a place may also require increased monitoring against uses that could harm the trademark’s image or trademark rights.

5. How can a naming agreement be legally secured?
It is advisable to provide for:

• A specific clause dealing with naming
• Provisions addressing moral rights
• Conditions governing visual modifications
• The terms of compensation, where applicable.

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

Following the introduction of GDPR, the WHOIS data access has been restricted, thereby making the identification of disputed domain name registrants more difficult. In this context, UDRP proceedings have increasingly been used as an indirect mechanism to get access to such identifying information.

The revision of the WIPO Schedule of Fees, which came into effect in March 2026 and reduced the amount retained by the Center in the event of the early withdrawal of a UDRP complaint, reinforces this trend by making such access more economically affordable and strategically more attractive.

WHOIS data access under the UDRP procedure

Following the filing of a UDRP complaint, the WIPO Center conducts a verification with the registrar, which involves verifying the domain name’s owner identification information with the registrar. In this context, the registrar is required to provide WIPO with:

• The true identity of the domain name registrant, including where privacy or proxy services are used

• Associated contact details

This information is subsequently transmitted to the complainant, where appropriate, to enable the amendment of the complaint.

Such access is obtained before any formal notification of the dispute, that is, before adversarial proceedings are effectively initiated. This verification stage therefore makes it possible to restore practical access to the data within a framework compatible with GDPR requirements, through institutional intermediation by WIPO, a strictly litigation-related purpose, and limited disclosure of the data.

A prohibitive cost of access to WHOIS data prior to the 2026 reform

Prior to this update, where a complainant withdrew its complaint after the proceedings had been initiated but before the administrative panel had been appointed, WIPO retained USD 500 as administrative fees for disputes (between one and five domain names), out of a total of USD 1,500 in procedural costs. The balance of USD 1,000 was refunded to the complainant, meaning that the actual cost incurred amounted to USD 500 solely for obtaining the registrant’s identification details.

However, no refund was granted if the withdrawal took place after the panel had been appointed.

This financial constraint effectively limited the use of UDRP proceedings as a tool for accessing WHOIS data.

The 2026 reform: towards more affordable access to WHOIS data

Accordingly, WIPO has revised the scale of amounts deducted in the event of the withdrawal of a UDRP complaint and has introduced a more nuanced distinction based on the stage of this proceedings.

For proceedings involving one to five domain names, where withdrawal occurs:

• Prior to formal notification of the dispute to the respondent: WIPO retains fees of USD 100.
• After formal notification of the dispute to the respondent: WIPO retains fees of USD 500.

Under this arrangement, obtaining the registrant’s identification details now costs only USD 100, compared with USD 500 prior to the 2026 reform, provided that the complaint is withdrawn before the dispute is officially notified.

This development materially alters the economics of the procedure: it facilitates lower-cost access to WHOIS data within the UDRP framework and, in practice, incentive for early withdrawal. WIPO thereby promotes more efficient case management, limiting unnecessary use of resources and reducing the financial exposure of the parties.

Conclusion

More affordable access to WHOIS data constitutes a clear opportunity for rights holders, which now benefit from an effective and economically optimized tool to lift the anonymity surrounding WHOIS records.

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

Dreyfus law firm 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. What is meant in practice by “formal notification”?
This refers to the stage at which WIPO officially notifies the complaint to the domain name registrant, marking the commencement of the adversarial phase.

2. Does the use of a privacy service prevent any action?
No. Even if a proxy or anonymization service is used, the registrant’s true identity can be obtained through the UDRP process by verifying the information with the registrar

3. Can UDRP proceedings be used to identify a domain name registrant?
Yes, indirectly. Upon filing a complaint, UDRP proceedings enable disclosure of registrant identification data via the registrar. The 2026 reform, by reducing the cost of early withdrawal, in practice facilitates the use of this mechanism for identification purposes.

4. Can WHOIS data prove bad faith?
WHOIS data does not, in itself, establish bad faith. However, it may constitute a useful indicium insofar as it enables the identification of the domain name holder and, where applicable, the disclosure of patterns of repeated conduct or the existence of domain name portfolios likely to inform the assessment of bad faith

5. Is WIPO’s verification of the registrant’s identity automatic?
Following the filing of a complaint, the WIPO Center submits a verification request to the registrar in order to confirm registration data, including the registrant’s identity. This is a procedural step requiring registrar intervention, rather than direct access to a database.

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

Introduction

The year 2026 marks a pivotal stage in the regulation and governance of artificial intelligence systems. After several years characterised by guiding principles and national strategies, AI law has now entered a phase of binding regulation, notably with the progressive implementation of the European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act).

At the same time, the widespread adoption of AI by businesses, particularly generative systems and autonomous agents, significantly increases legal, technical and reputational risks.

In this context, managing AI risks in 2026 requires moving beyond experimental approaches and implementing structured, documented governance aligned with international regulatory requirements.

A transformation of the AI regulatory framework in 2026

The global regulatory landscape for AI is no longer limited to recommendations or ethical principles; it is now based on binding legal obligations that apply on a large scale. The European Union, with the AI Act, is playing a leading role, but other jurisdictions such as China, the United States, South Korea, Australia, and Vietnam are following a similar path.

The year 2026 marks a decisive turning point, as the AI Act becomes fully enforceable particularly the provisions regarding high-risk AI systems and mechanisms such as regulatory sandboxes are implemented. This entry into force comes amid the growing use of AI in decisions that have a direct impact on individuals’ rights and access to essential services.

As a result, regulators consider that informal governance mechanisms are no longer sufficient to mitigate these risks.

The mandatory formalisation of risk management

Starting August 2, 2026, managing AI-related risks will become a core requirement for companies developing or using systems, particularly high-risk ones. These systems, deployed in sensitive areas (security, biometrics, medical devices, education), are subject to strict requirements.

The AI Act now requires companies presenting or developing products that incorporate high-risk AI systems to carry out:

• A prior risk assessment and a documented management system;
• CE marking and registration in the European database;
• Comprehensive technical documentation, ensuring transparency and traceability;
• Effective human oversight;
• Continuous monitoring, including logs, compliance checks, and requirements regarding robustness and cybersecurity

These obligations require integrating risk management throughout the entire lifecycle of the systems, from design through to operation.

This evolution also requires a redefinition of internal responsibilities, with closer collaboration between legal, technical and compliance teams.

Increased requirements for transparency and explainability

Transparency has become a central pillar of AI regulation. Authorities require that users be clearly informed when interacting with an AI system and that they can understand, at least broadly, how automated decisions are made.

An automated decision is a decision made, in whole or in part, by an algorithmic system without direct human intervention, based on data and predictive models. Automated decisions must be explainable, particularly in sensitive sectors. This requirement aligns with the GDPR’s principles regarding transparency and the right to information.

The AI Act also imposes obligations regarding the identification of AI-generated content. Users must be able to determine whether content has been generated by AI, particularly in the case of AI-generated text, images, or videos. In this regard, the European AI Office offers a voluntary code of best practices designed to support the implementation of these obligations.

This evolution requires companies to integrate transparency from the design phase (“transparency by design”). These obligations go beyond formal disclosures and involve a genuine effort to ensure user understanding and decision intelligibility.

Stronger requirements for security and user protection in AI systems

The safety of AI systems is an increasingly prominent regulatory priority. Risks related to algorithmic bias, discrimination and exposure of vulnerable users, particularly minors, are subject to heightened scrutiny.

Regulators have already demonstrated, since 2025, their willingness to intervene where AI systems generate inappropriate content or pose risks to users. This trend is reinforced in 2026 with the the adoption of new regulations in many jurisdictions requiring specific obligations to prevent harmful or manipulative content.

Furthermore, risks related to deepfakes and synthetic content represent a major concern. These technologies may be used for fraud, harassment or privacy violations, prompting several jurisdictions to consider targeted regulation.

In this context, companies must integrate “safety by design” principles, including bias testing, use-case restrictions and enhanced control over generated content.

Ongoing intellectual property challenges

Intellectual property remains a central issue in AI-related legal debates. Litigation concerning the use of protected content to train AI models is increasing, revealing divergent approaches across jurisdictions.

Some recent decisions have recognized that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works may constitute copyright infringement, as in the German case GEMA v. OpenAI of November 11, 2025, in which the Munich court held that training models using copyrighted song lyrics without a license was unlawful.

Conversely, other jurisdictions take a more restrictive approach: in the case of Getty Images v. Stability AI on November 4, 2025, the High Court of Justice in London held that a model that does not contain copyrighted works in a recognizable form cannot be considered an unauthorized reproduction, thereby highlighting the decisive role of technical analysis and territorial context.

For more information on the Getty Images v. Stability AI decision, we invite you to read our previously published article.

This legal uncertainty requires companies to secure their practices, particularly regarding training data, licensing strategies and control of generated outputs. Beyond litigation risks, these issues also concern the valuation of intangible assets and the protection of innovation.

Conclusion

Managing AI risks in 2026 requires a fundamental transformation of business practices, integrating legal, technical and ethical requirements into a comprehensive and structured approach.

The growing complexity of technologies, combined with increasing regulatory obligations, demands constant vigilance and proactive risk management.

Dreyfus & Associates 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 :

Is the AI Act mandatory for all companies?
Yes, if a company develops, markets, or uses an AI system that has an impact within the EU. However, obligations vary depending on the level of risk and are much stricter for high-risk systems.

Are AI training datasets regulated?
Yes. They must comply with GDPR principles (lawfulness, transparency, purpose limitation) and, where applicable, copyright law. Companies must be able to justify the origin and use of the data.

How can risks related to deepfakes and AI-generated content be mitigated?
By combining detection tools, traceability mechanisms, and strict internal policies to control usage and prevent the spread of misleading content.

Why should companies act now?
Because the rules are coming into force and enforcement is increasing. Acting early helps reduce legal risks and build trust.

What are the risks of non-compliance?
Companies face significant fines, product bans or withdrawals, and potential litigation. Reputational damage can also be immediate, especially in cases of controversial AI use.

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

In an economic environment where company value increasingly relies on intangible assets, the question of whether investment funds should own trademark rights has become particularly relevant. Long perceived as mere marketing tools, trademarks are now recognized as structuring legal and financial assets, capable of directly influencing valuation, risk mitigation, and investment profitability.

In our practice, we observe that many transactions fail or suffer significant value reductions due to inadequate management of industrial property rights, particularly trademarks. Conversely, a strong and well-structured trademark portfolio can transform a conventional investment into a high-potential strategic asset.

Accordingly, it is necessary to assess the true role of trademark rights within investment fund strategies. Are they merely protective tools, or do they constitute a fundamental driver of value creation ?

Trademark rights as essential strategic assets

For investment funds, holding or controlling trademarks is no longer simply a legal matter, but a genuine strategy for securing and enhancing investments.

Trademark law grants an exclusive right to use a distinctive sign, enabling the identification of the origin of goods or services and ensuring their uniqueness in the marketplace. This exclusivity serves as a key differentiation tool, particularly in highly competitive sectors. It protects the reputation of the target company while preventing third-party misappropriation.

From an investment perspective, trademarks thus become structural assets. They embody not only the commercial identity of a company but also its perceived value. A company lacking strong trademark protection presents an immediate legal risk that may jeopardize its operations and, consequently, the profitability of the investment.

The impact of trademarks on investment valuation and profitability

Trademark ownership directly affects company valuation, both at entry and exit stages. During acquisition processes, the existence of a secure trademark portfolio is an indicator of maturity and stability. It reassures investors and facilitates negotiations by reducing legal uncertainty.

Conversely, the absence of protection or the existence of potential trademark disputes may lead to a significant revision of the purchase price or even the abandonment of the transaction altogether. In this context, trademarks act as a crucial analytical filter during due diligence.

Beyond risk mitigation, trademarks also offer independent revenue-generating opportunities. They can be exploited separately from the core business, particularly through contractual arrangements such as licenses or commercial partnerships. This ability to generate indirect income gives trademarks a particularly attractive asset dimension for investment funds.

At the exit stage, the value of a trademark portfolio becomes a decisive factor. A strong, well-known, and legally protected trademark enhances company valuation and attracts strategic buyers. It reduces perceived risks and facilitates the successful completion of transactions.

For further insight into the impact of trademarks on company valuation, we invite you to consult our previously published article.

Legal requirements and compliance issues related to trademarks

Holding trademark rights requires rigorous and continuous management. Unlike other assets, a trademark is not acquired permanently. It must be used, monitored, and renewed to remain valid.

Periodic renewal is an essential obligation. Failure to comply results in the loss of rights and opens the door to third-party appropriation. Such a situation may have significant financial consequences for an investment fund, particularly where brand value is critical.

In addition, monitoring infringements is a strategic necessity. Risks of counterfeiting, imitation, or cybersquatting are particularly high in a global digital environment. Funds must be able to detect such infringements promptly and respond effectively, whether through litigation or specific administrative procedures such as the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Trademark protection must also be considered in light of digital challenges. Domain names, online platforms, and social media represent major points of vulnerability. A lack of coordination between trademark strategy and digital strategy exposes companies to increased risks of identity theft and fraud.

Strategies for managing and optimizing trademark portfolios

A strategic approach to trademark rights requires early integration of intellectual property into the investment process. Prior audits of intangible assets help identify risks and anticipate necessary corrective actions. This step is essential to secure transactions and optimize asset valuation.

The structuring of trademark portfolios is also a key optimization tool. A coherent strategy tailored to target markets maximizes protection while controlling costs. Centralizing rights within dedicated structures may also facilitate management and create tax optimization opportunities.

From an operational perspective, trademark management requires the involvement of specialized experts capable of ensuring ongoing monitoring and implementing appropriate enforcement strategies. Support from intellectual property professionals enables the transformation of a legal asset into a true value-creation tool.

Conclusion

Trademark law is now a fundamental component of investment fund strategy. It secures assets, enhances their value, and generates additional revenue streams. Its role goes far beyond mere legal protection, forming part of a broader framework of performance and competitiveness.

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. Can an investment fund record a trademark as an asset on its balance sheet ?
Yes, a trademark may be recognized as an intangible asset if it is identifiable and expected to generate future economic benefits. Its valuation often requires specific methodologies and may be subject to audit.

2. What is the difference between a registered trademark and a trade name ?
A trademark grants an exclusive legal right, whereas a trade name serves to identify the business. Their legal scope and protection mechanisms differ significantly.

3. Can a trademark be transferred independently from a company ?
Yes, a trademark can be assigned separately from the business. This flexibility allows for strategic asset management and value optimization.

4. What are the costs associated with international trademark registration ?
Costs vary depending on jurisdictions and filing systems. They include official fees, professional fees, and ongoing maintenance costs.

5. Can a trademark be challenged after registration ?
Yes, a trademark may be subject to opposition, invalidity, or revocation proceedings. Its validity depends on distinctiveness and genuine use.

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.