News

Introduction

On August 12, 2026, ICANN closed the application window for its new Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program, the “2026 Round”. More than 1,600 applications were filed, confirming strong appetite for new internet naming spaces fourteen years after the previous 2012 round. For businesses and intellectual property rights holders, this new wave of extensions represents both a strategic opportunity and a potential source of new online infringement and cybersquatting risks.

A landmark round: more than 1,600 applications filed

A fifteen-week filing window

Opened on April 30, 2026, the application window closed on August 12, 2026 after fifteen weeks, with a significant surge of filings in the final days. More than 1,100 primary applications also included requests for replacement strings, an option available under the program in certain circumstances. These figures remain provisional: they will only be finalized once ICANN receives the required evaluation fees, due by August 19, 2026 (or seven days after an invoice is issued, whichever is later).

Concrete example: the previous 2012 round resulted in more than 1,200 new gTLDs being delegated, including brand extensions (.microsoft, .sky), geographic extensions (.africa, .berlin) and generic extensions (.bank, .eco). The 2026 Round is expected to be of comparable scale, with an unprecedented linguistic dimension.

For a detailed analysis of how the new gTLD program has evolved since the 2012 round, please see our previously published article: " The new gTLD program: What has changed since 2012? ".

An unprecedented opening to non-latin scripts

A notable feature of this round is that ICANN is, for the first time at this scale, accepting applications in 27 non-Latin scripts, including Arabic, Chinese, Devanagari and Thai. This linguistic expansion aims to make the domain name system more accessible to the billions of internet users who do not rely on Latin-based scripts. The base application fee stands at US$227,000, an amount that can rise significantly depending on the specialized evaluation requirements applicable to each type of string.

Key milestones: from reveal day to delegation

Once applications closed, several stages structure the evaluation process, up to the effective delegation of the new extensions.

Reveal Day, the publication of applications received, is a pivotal moment for rights holders, as it will disclose both the strings applied for and any conflicts between identical or similar applications.

Contention and objection procedures

Where several applicants seek an identical or overly similar string, ICANN provides contention-resolution mechanisms, including auctions, while prohibiting any private settlement between applicants. In addition, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center has been appointed as the exclusive provider for two pre-delegation, rights-based objection procedures: the Legal Rights Objection (LRO) and the String Confusion Objection (SCO). WIPO already administered 69 LRO cases during the 2012 round, making it the reference forum for trademark owners seeking to challenge an application that infringes their rights.

For further insight into the objection mechanisms and dispute resolution providers for the new round, please see our previously published article: " ICANN appoints dispute resolution service providers for the next round of new gTLDs: what businesses need to know ".

What risks and opportunities for trademark owners?

Increased risks of cybersquatting and trademark infringement

The opening of new extensions, particularly in non-Latin scripts, multiplies the possible combinations built around a given trademark. A rights holder may therefore face applications reproducing or evoking its mark in a language or script it had not previously monitored. Typical client scenario: a globally known luxury or cosmetics brand could discover, on Reveal Day, that a string closely resembling its name has been applied for by an unaffiliated third party, in a script it had not anticipated.

Strategic opportunities not to be overlooked

Conversely, this round is an opportunity for some companies to apply for their own brand extension (“.brand”), following the example of .airbus or .bnpparibas, in order to gain full control over the naming space associated with their identity. A .brand extension notably allows a company to be exempted from certain Sunrise obligations while retaining control of the registry.

For a more detailed analysis of the strategic issues surrounding “.brand” extensions, please see our article: " .brand extension: A complete guide for companies ahead of the ICANN 2026 wave ".

Practical roadmap

• Monitor the Reveal Day publication to identify any string conflicting with your rights
• Check that your trademarks are recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) to benefit from protection mechanisms (Sunrise, Claims)
• Assess, with your counsel, whether to file a Legal Rights Objection (LRO) with WIPO within the applicable deadlines
• Anticipate a possible contention procedure if several applications target a string identical to your rights
• Update your domain name monitoring strategy (including UDRP practice) to cover the forthcoming new extensions

For further information on domain name monitoring and the prevention of cybersquatting, please see our article: " Domain name monitoring: protecting your trademark against cybersquatting ".

Conclusion

The 2026 gTLD Round marks a major milestone in the evolution of the domain name system, with more than 1,600 applications filed and an unprecedented opening to non-Latin scripts. For trademark owners, the challenge is twofold: anticipating the risks of conflicts and cybersquatting linked to these new extensions, while exploring the strategic opportunities they offer. Do not wait for Reveal Day to act: our teams are available to assess the impact of this 2026 gTLD round on your rights and to build a tailored protection strategy with you.

Key takeaways: more than 1,600 applications filed; Reveal Day expected within 9 weeks; WIPO is the exclusive provider for LRO and SCO objections; the Trademark Clearinghouse remains the key tool for preventive trademark protection.

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

Is a “.brand” extension reserved for large multinationals?

Not by rule, but its cost (application fees starting at US$227,000, plus annual registry operating costs) puts it out of reach for most companies in practice; smaller businesses can sometimes access similar benefits through a shared technical registry partner.

Can a company that did not apply in 2026 still get its own extension later?

There is no guarantee in the short term: ICANN let fourteen years pass between the 2012 and 2026 rounds, with no commitment on when the next cycle will open. Interested companies should monitor ICANN's announcements and plan well in advance.

What happens if a trademark is not recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse when a new extension launches?

The rights holder loses the benefit of the Sunrise period, which allows registering a matching domain name before the extension opens to the public, and must instead monitor for potentially infringing registrations after the fact, with a higher risk of having to litigate.

Can a small business file a Legal Rights Objection on its own, or is legal representation required?

WIPO's procedure does not require representation by a lawyer, but the technical nature of the arguments involved (proving prior rights, likelihood of confusion, absence of the applicant's legitimate interest) makes specialized counsel strongly advisable.

Can a contention (auction) outcome be appealed?

Legal Rights Objection determinations can be challenged under WIPO's appellate rules applicable to the 2026 Round, in effect since January 1, 2026; by contrast, the outcome of a contention auction between competing applicants is generally not subject to such an appeal.

What is the difference between a String Confusion Objection and an ordinary trademark opposition before the USPTO or EUIPO?

A String Confusion Objection only addresses confusion between two candidate strings before delegation, whereas a trademark opposition concerns the registration of a mark itself and can be filed at any point in that mark's life.

In practice, how long does it take from filing an application to a new extension actually going live?

Experience from the 2012 round shows this varies widely: uncontested extensions were delegated in a little over a year, while those subject to objections or contention procedures sometimes took several additional years.

Dreyfus & Associés is pleased to announce that Nathalie Dreyfus has been recognized at the Advisory Excellence Awards 2026. She has received the title “Trademark Law Expert of the Year” for France, highlighting her expertise in trademark law.

A distinction in trademark law for France

This recognition forms part of the Annual 2026 Awards organized by Advisory Excellence. It distinguishes Nathalie Dreyfus as “Trademark Law Expert of the Year” for France.

Advisory Excellence is an international network presenting legal and advisory professionals by country and area of expertise. Nathalie Dreyfus’s profile on Advisory Excellence notably outlines her work in trademark law, intellectual property portfolio management and the protection of digital assets.

Supporting clients from trademark protection to enforcement

A French and European trademark attorney, Nathalie Dreyfus founded Dreyfus & Associés in 2004. Together with her teams, she assists companies and their advisers with protecting, managing and enforcing their rights in France and internationally.

This trademark law practice addresses practical issues: preparing a name or product for launch, aligning protection with the relevant markets, organizing a portfolio of rights and responding to infringement. Each decision must take into account the company’s business, its development plans and the risks identified.

Before a filing or launch, clearance searches help identify earlier rights that could create an obstacle. Their analysis informs the choice of a sign and the development of an appropriate protection strategy.

Over time, trademark and domain name monitoring helps identify filings or uses that may infringe the company’s rights. The firm also assists with opposition proceedings, disputes and online trademark enforcement, in coordination with its clients’ legal advisers.

This connection between trademark strategy and the digital environment is central to our work. It allows industrial property rights, domain names and the use of distinctive signs on online platforms to be considered together.

Sharing this recognition with our clients and partners

We welcome this distinction with gratitude and thank our clients, partners and correspondents for the trust they place in us. It is also an opportunity to acknowledge the daily commitment of the firm’s teams to handling matters carefully and maintaining high-quality exchanges with companies and their advisers.

Our commitment continues with the same standards: understanding the issues specific to each project, providing rigorous analysis and developing intellectual property strategies tailored to our clients’ needs.

To discuss the protection, management or enforcement of your trademarks, contact Dreyfus & Associés.

Dreyfus & Associés law firm partners with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

The global video game market is experiencing sustained growth and is expected to reach USD 198 billion by 2027. Esports is following the same trajectory, with the global market already valued at nearly USD 1.4 billion in 2022. This economic expansion is accompanied by a growing number of stakeholders, business models and contractual relationships surrounding games, competitions, streaming, licensing, sponsorship and intellectual property rights. In an international sector driven by game launches, updates, tournaments and competitive seasons, a dispute can therefore have immediate consequences for the commercial exploitation of a title or the organization of an event, making access to fast, specialized dispute resolution mechanisms tailored to the constraints of the industry particularly important.

Against this backdrop, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and Dreyfus & Associés are jointly organizing, on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. CEST, a free webinar dedicated to alternative dispute resolution in the video game and esports industry. Nathalie Dreyfus and Milena Dreyfus will present the main types of disputes encountered in this sector and examine how mediation, arbitration and domain name dispute resolution procedures can provide effective tools for resolving conflicts involving, in particular, intellectual property, contracts, trademarks, digital content and domain names.

Why video games and esports require tailored dispute resolution mechanisms

A game, platform or tournament rarely depends on a single right or agreement. Software code, engines, graphics, music, characters, databases, trademarks, online identifiers and user-generated content may each be governed by different legal regimes. These assets are connected through contracts between studios, publishers, technical providers, players, teams, organizers, broadcasters, sponsors and platforms. Effective copyright protection therefore requires more than ownership in principle. It also requires a clear chain of title, consistent licensing terms and evidence showing how each contribution may be used.

Esports add a particularly strong time constraint. A challenge concerning player eligibility, tournament rules, streaming rights or a sponsorship obligation may lose much of its practical value if it is resolved after the competition. Stakeholders need to identify the appropriate mechanism quickly, preserve evidence, ensure that each party can present its case and obtain an outcome that remains relevant to the operational calendar.

Which disputes may affect studios, teams, platforms and sponsors?

Licensing, copyright and technology

Disputes may concern the territorial scope of a license, reuse of a character, integration of third-party software, remuneration of a creator, exploitation of music or ownership of work delivered by a contractor. In these matters, assignment clauses, version histories, technical documentation and preserved communications are often decisive. The procedure must enable a decision-maker familiar with industry practices to consider contractual and technical evidence without losing sight of the commercial timetable.

Trademarks, domain names and digital identities

Domain names are also a significant source of disputes in the video game and esports sectors, particularly in cases of cybersquatting or typosquatting targeting the name of a game, studio, team or competition. Such practices may also be used to operate fake ticketing or streaming websites, or even phishing schemes, especially in the run-up to a game launch or tournament. In response to these infringements, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as domain name dispute resolution procedures administered by WIPO, can provide a targeted and appropriate way to address the dispute.

Player agreements, sponsorship, broadcasting and integrity

Relationships between players, clubs, leagues, organizers and commercial partners raise specific issues: duration and termination, image rights, exclusivity, revenue sharing, attendance obligations, broadcasting, disciplinary sanctions and allegations of match manipulation. Private regulations often sit alongside national law, while the relevant relationships may be cross-border. Clear provisions on governing law, procedure and decision-making authority reduce uncertainty when a dispute occurs.

Mediation, arbitration and expert determination: complementary tools

Mediation to preserve a relationship and build an agreement

In the video game and esports sectors, mediation can be particularly appropriate where a dispute arises between parties that are expected to continue working together, for example, a studio and a publisher, a team and a sponsor, or an organizer and a broadcaster. It allows the parties to seek a rapid, negotiated and confidential solution, while preserving their business relationship and taking into account the operational constraints and tight timelines specific to the sector.

Arbitration to obtain a binding decision

Arbitration allows a dispute to be decided by one or more arbitrators selected for their experience. The parties may adapt the language, seat, timetable and certain procedural stages. This flexibility is valuable when technical expertise, multiple agreements or confidential information are central to the case. The resulting award is intended to bind the parties and, depending on the circumstances, may benefit from an international enforcement framework that is more suitable than parallel national proceedings.

Expert determination for a focused issue

Expert determination addresses a defined question, such as conformity of a deliverable, calculation of royalties, compliance with a performance threshold, valuation of an asset or a technical assessment. It may remove a specific obstacle without opening a wider dispute. Its effectiveness depends on the wording of the clause, the expert’s mandate and whether the conclusion is contractually binding.

IGET and WIPO services for video games and esports

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center offers mechanisms that are particularly well suited to the specific constraints of the video game and esports sectors. Mediation, arbitration and expert determination can notably be used to address international, technical or sensitive disputes within a confidential framework and with the support of professionals familiar with the specific features of the industry.

The webinar will also present the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a joint initiative of ESIC and the WIPO AMC specifically designed for disputes arising in the video game and esports sectors. IGET can notably handle commercial, intellectual property and integrity-related disputes, providing a single framework for parties that may be established in several different jurisdictions.

What participants will gain from the webinar

• an overview of the video game and esports industries and their most frequent disputes;
• an explanation of mediation, arbitration and expert determination;
• an introduction to WIPO services and IGET;
• practical examples involving domain names and trademark protection;
• recommendations on dispute resolution clauses and contractual best practices;
• a question and answer session for participants.

Nathalie Dreyfus and Milena Dreyfus: complementary perspectives

Nathalie Dreyfus, Industrial Property Attorney, founder of the firm, WIPO expert and court-appointed expert accredited by the French Court of Cassation, has many years of experience in trademark strategies, domain names and the resolution of international disputes. Her experience enables her to combine asset protection, risk assessment and the choice of a dispute resolution procedure proportionate to the economic stakes involved.

Milena Dreyfus, IP/IT lawyer with particular expertise in domain names and cybersecurity, works on intellectual property and digital law issues that shape innovative projects. Her contribution provides an approach directly connected to contracts, technological uses and the operational risks specific to digital environments.

Practical example: protecting an international release without losing the timetable

Consider a studio preparing the international release of a game. A few weeks before launch, a third party registers several domain names similar to its trademark and reproduces elements of the campaign, while a business partner challenges the territorial scope of its license. A coordinated response preserves digital evidence, reviews the chain of contracts, prioritizes territories, starts a domain name recovery procedure and structures negotiations with the partner. If the contract provides for it, mediation or arbitration can address the licensing dispute. The objective is to maintain enforceable rights, limit public confusion and preserve the release whenever the legal conditions allow it.

Who should attend?

The webinar is intended for independent studios and publishers, tournament organizers, professional teams and players, platforms, broadcasters and technical providers, as well as sponsors, investors, lawyers and in-house legal teams. It will be particularly useful for professionals who draft or negotiate licenses, production agreements, sponsorship arrangements, tournament rules or dispute resolution clauses.

Practical information

• Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2026
• Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. CEST
• Format: online
• Attendance: free, registration required
• Organized by: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and Dreyfus & Associés
• Dreyfus panelists: Nathalie Dreyfus and Milena Dreyfus

Frequently asked questions

Should parties wait for a dispute before choosing mediation or arbitration?

No. The best time to organize dispute resolution is during contract negotiations. A clause may provide for an initial discussion period, followed by mediation and, if no agreement is reached, arbitration. It should identify the institution, language, seat, number of arbitrators and, where relevant, an expedited procedure. An unclear clause may create an additional dispute about jurisdiction or procedure.

Which video game disputes are best suited to mediation?

Mediation is useful when the parties need to preserve a relationship, redefine a license, arrange a technical transition or build an outcome that a court or tribunal could not impose in the same terms. It may also take place while another procedure is pending. Its suitability depends on urgency, the balance between the parties, the available evidence and a genuine willingness to negotiate.

Does every domain name dispute fall under the UDRP?

No. The UDRP addresses defined forms of abusive registration and requires specific conditions to be established. The domain name, extension, registrant, use, prior rights and remedy sought must all be assessed. A national procedure, negotiation or court action may be more appropriate. The objective is to select the route that offers the best balance between speed, cost, evidence and the scope of the outcome.

How can confidentiality be protected in a sensitive dispute?

Confidentiality should be addressed in the contract, the applicable rules and, where necessary, specific undertakings governing documents, hearings and the decision. Parties should also secure access to data, limit recipients and define retention arrangements. These safeguards are important when a matter involves source code, a product roadmap, commercial data or information about a security vulnerability.

Why choose Dreyfus & Associés?

Dreyfus & Associés advises businesses on the protection, enforcement and strategic use of trademarks, copyright, domain names and digital assets in France and internationally. This cross-disciplinary perspective is particularly relevant to video games and esports, where a project combines brand identity, creative content, technology, contracts and global exploitation. To review a clause, assess a trademark or domain name strategy, or prepare an alternative dispute resolution matter, contact Dreyfus & Associés for an initial confidential discussion.

Anticipating disputes to protect the project

In video games and esports, the value of an asset depends both on its protection and on the ability to respond when exploitation is threatened. A suitable clause, well-preserved evidence and a coherent dispute resolution mechanism can reduce uncertainty and protect the business timetable. The webinar on October 7, 2026 will give participants practical reference points for selecting the appropriate route and integrating dispute resolution into their intellectual property strategy.

Dreyfus & Associés law firm partners with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.

Introduction

Adopted in 2022 and fully effective as of February 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act (DSA) established a harmonized European framework aimed at increasing the accountability of digital intermediaries, better regulating the dissemination of illegal content, products and services, and strengthening the protection of users online.

In 2026, its implementation will enter a particularly practical phase: following an initial period focused on compliance, European authorities are now stepping up their oversight and expect operators to demonstrate the actual effectiveness of the measures they have put in place.

Evolution of the Digital Services Act

Following the widespread implementation of the DSA in February 2024, European authorities have gradually stepped up their effective compliance with the obligations imposed on digital platforms and intermediaries. The challenge for companies is no longer merely to have formally implemented the measures required by the regulation, but to be able to demonstrate that they are effectively implemented, that they enable the identification and mitigation of the risks addressed by the DSA, and that they produce, in practice, the expected compliance results

This shift is reflected in particular by several proceedings and measures adopted by the European Commission against major digital platforms.

In July 2026, the European Commission fined AliExpress 550 million euros for failures in assessing and mitigating risks associated with the sale of illegal, dangerous, or counterfeit products. It also issued preliminary objections to TikTok regarding the default security settings for minors’ accounts and accepted an action plan from X focusing, in particular, on its advertising registry and researchers’ access to data.

The message to operators is clear: automation, the scale of the service, and technical complexity do not exempt companies from identifying risks or demonstrating the effectiveness of corrective measures. The DSA thus becomes a governance issue shared by the legal, compliance, product, IT, and intellectual property departments.

Which companies fall within the scope of the Digital Services Act?

Classification must be carried out service by service

The DSA provides for several levels of classification depending on the nature and role of the digital service in question. In particular, it distinguishes between simple transport, caching, and hosting services. Among hosting services, some may also be classified as online platforms and, when they enable businesses to enter into distance contracts with consumers, as online marketplaces.

The applicable obligations increase progressively depending on the classification chosen. Additional requirements also apply to very large online platforms and very large search engines, VLOPs and VLOSEs, with at least 45 million average monthly active users in the Union.

A single digital product may offer multiple features that fall under different classifications. A SaaS application, for example, may include a private hosting space, a public forum, and a marketplace offering modules developed by third parties. Each feature must therefore be examined separately to precisely identify the applicable obligations.

Non-EU providers may be directly subject to the DSA

The absence of an EU subsidiary does not exclude the Regulation. The DSA applies where a provider offers services to recipients in the Union and maintains a substantial connection with the EU market.

Relevant indicators may include the language used, euro pricing, payment methods, targeted advertising, the size of the European customer base, delivery arrangements and availability through localised app stores. Mere technical accessibility from the EU is not sufficient.

A covered provider with no EU establishment must appoint a DSA legal representative in a Member State where it offers services. This mandate remains legally distinct from the representative required under Article 27 GDPR, even where both roles are entrusted to the same service provider.

In France, Arcom acts as the Digital Services coordinator for Internet services. It operates alongside the DGCCRF and the CNIL under the French Law of May 21, 2024 on securing and regulating the digital environment.

Which DSA obligations must become operational controls?

Notice, action and redress

Article 16 requires hosting providers to operate accessible and sufficiently precise notice-and-action mechanisms. A properly substantiated notice may give the provider actual knowledge of the alleged illegality.

The provider must then assess the report diligently, document its reasoning and explain any restriction imposed. Online platforms must also provide an internal complaints-handling system and inform users about available out-of-court dispute-settlement procedures.

For intellectual property claims, the reporting form should identify:

• the intellectual property right concerned;
• the rights holder or authorised representative;
• the exact URL of the disputed content or listing;
• the evidence supporting the alleged infringement;
• the reporting party’s good-faith statement.

Fully automated removal may disregard licences, exceptions or territorial limitations. Conversely, failure to act on a properly substantiated notice may undermine the hosting provider’s conditional liability protection.

Transparency, advertising and recommender systems

Terms and conditions must clearly explain content restrictions, automated moderation tools and the role of human review.

Platforms must also:

• identify advertisements and the relevant advertiser;
• disclose the main advertising-targeting parameters;
• explain the principal parameters of recommender systems;
• submit statements of reasons to the EU transparency database.

Harmonised transparency-reporting templates have been mandatory since the second half of 2025. The Arcom professional guidance on the DSA explains the reporting and registration framework applicable in France.

VLOPs and VLOSEs must also perform systemic-risk assessments, implement mitigation measures, undergo independent audits and maintain advertising repositories. Since 29 October 2025, the EU data-access framework has allowed vetted researchers to request access to certain internal platform data relevant to systemic risks.

Safety and privacy for minors by default

Article 28 requires platforms accessible to minors to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security. The Commission’s July 2025 guidelines clarify expectations concerning age assurance, protective default settings, recommender systems, unwanted contact, addictive design and harmful commercial practices.

A contractual age restriction of thirteen or sixteen is not sufficient where no credible mechanism makes it effective. Regulators may consider the actual audience, the information available to the provider, the content offered and the effectiveness of age-assurance measures.

How should companies build a defensible DSA roadmap?

It is recommended for companies to:

• map every functionality and third-party content flow concerned by the DSA;
• determine whether the service falls within the territorial scope of the DSA and document the number of active users in the European Union
• test notices, response times, statements of reasons and appeals;
• audit traders and controls addressing counterfeit or unsafe products;
• Incorporate requirements related to minors, advertising, and recommendation systems from the very beginning of service design

retain decision logs, metrics and evidence required by regulators.

Conclusion

The update of the EU Digital Services Act in 2026 confirms that compliance is now measured through system quality, decision traceability and the practical effectiveness of safeguards. Platforms, marketplaces, hosting providers and community services should treat the DSA as a continuous programme coordinated with the GDPR, consumer law and intellectual property enforcement.

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 DSA apply to companies outside the European Union?

Yes. It may apply where they offer services to recipients in the Union and maintain a substantial connection with the EU market. A provider with no EU establishment must generally appoint an EU legal representative.

Do all online businesses have the same DSA obligations?

No. Duties depend on the service category, functionality, size and whether the service facilitates transactions between professional traders and consumers.

Must a platform remove every reported item immediately?

No. A sufficiently precise notice must be assessed promptly, objectively and proportionately. The DSA does not require automatic removal merely because content has been challenged.

What are the maximum DSA penalties?

An infringement may lead to a fine of up to 6% of annual worldwide turnover. Separate fines and periodic penalty payments may apply to inaccurate information or failure to comply with a regulatory decision.

Does the DSA replace the GDPR?

No. The two regulations apply cumulatively. The GDPR governs personal-data processing, while the DSA regulates intermediary services, content moderation, advertising, recommender systems and certain systemic risks.

How does the DSA support anti-counterfeiting enforcement?

It strengthens notice mechanisms, requires the traceability of professional traders on marketplaces and obliges the largest platforms to assess and mitigate risks involving illegal or counterfeit products.

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.

Introduction

The grass used on a tennis court may include varieties protected by plant breeders’ rights. The distinction, however, is essential: intellectual property does not protect the lawn as a sporting surface, nor its colour, density or playing characteristics in the abstract. Protection attaches to an identified plant variety, provided that the legal requirements are satisfied and a valid right exists in the relevant territory.

Wimbledon makes that distinction particularly tangible. In its 2026 sports edition, WIPO Magazine explains that the exact varieties used at Wimbledon are not publicly disclosed, while noting that high-performance turfgrass of this kind is typically protected by plant breeders’ rights. Perennial ryegrass is selected for characteristics such as wear tolerance, rapid recovery, density and visual consistency. WIPO also notes that developing a sports-turf variety can require more than a decade of breeding and testing.

Why sports turf can be protected by plant variety rights

Plant variety rights are a specific industrial property regime designed to protect new plant varieties.

The applicable legal framework is based on several instruments that follow a broadly comparable approach:

• the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention;
• Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, applicable at European Union level;
• Articles L. 623-1 et seq. of the French Intellectual Property Code.

These instruments are based on a common principle: it is not the grass species as such that is subject to protection, but rather a sufficiently individualized plant variety capable of constituting a distinct subject matter of rights.

The protection criteria for a turfgrass variety

To qualify for protection, a variety must in particular be new, distinct, uniform and stable. It must therefore be clearly distinguishable from known varieties, sufficiently uniform in the expression of its relevant characteristics and capable of retaining those characteristics through successive propagation. A compliant variety denomination is also required.

These criteria are particularly relevant to sports turf because breeders are selecting reproducible performance traits:

• wear tolerance,
• recovery after heavy use,
• disease resistance,
• heat or drought resilience,
• visual uniformity.

WIPO Magazine reports that almost 7,000 varieties suitable for turfgrass use are protected across UPOV members, including varieties intended for tennis courts, football pitches, golf courses and multi-use sports surfaces.

What a plant variety right actually protects: the variety, not the tennis court

A plant variety certificate grants an exclusive right over certain acts concerning propagating or reproductive material. In France, Article L. 623-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code covers, in particular, production, reproduction, conditioning for the purpose of propagation, offering for sale, sale, import, export and stocking for those purposes. Article 13 of Regulation No 2100/94 provides for comparable protection at European Union level.

The practical consequence is important: playing tennis on a court established with a protected variety is not, by itself, an act reserved to the breeder. By contrast, reproducing or multiplying protected plant material without authorization in order to seed other courts, produce seed or place that material on the market may fall within the holder’s exclusive rights.

For more information on the protection, filing strategies and commercialization of plant varieties, we invite you to read our article: “Complete Guide to Plant Variety Rights 2025: Protection, Strategies and Commercialization”.

Wimbledon: protected genetics, seed mixtures and turf-management know-how

The Wimbledon example also shows that intellectual property protection is not limited to plant variety rights. WIPO notes that the exact varieties used are not publicly disclosed and that genetics account for only part of the performance: specialized turf management is crucial to maintaining a consistent playing surface from one year to the next.

The precise composition of a seed mixture, maintenance protocols, and parameters relating to mowing, irrigation, regeneration or seasonal preparation may therefore qualify as trade secrets where they are secret, have commercial value because of their secrecy and are subject to reasonable measures to keep them secret, in accordance with Article L. 151-1 of the French Commercial Code. Plant variety rights protect the variety itself, while trade secret protection may protect part of the technical “recipe” used to achieve a particular level of sporting performance.

For a broader analysis of this interaction, see our previously published article: “Why do plant innovations require a multidimensional intellectual property strategy?”.

How can the legal use of sports turf be secured?

For a club, stadium operator, tournament organizer or sports-surface supplier, the key question is not simply whether “the grass” is protected. It is whether the specific varieties being purchased, propagated or reseeded are subject to enforceable rights. Before procurement or a propagation programme, we recommend:

• • identifying the denomination of each variety and the breeder or right holder;
• • checking the existence and current status of the right in the relevant territory;
• • confirming that the supplier is authorized to market the material;
• • reviewing contractual clauses on propagation, reseeding and subcontracting; and
• • retaining invoices, batch references and traceability records.

UPOV’s PLUTO database is a valuable search tool, but UPOV expressly states that it does not replace the official publication of the competent authority.

For a European project, the filing and verification strategy can also be explored in greater detail in our article dedicated to filing a plant variety right in the European Union: “Filing a plant variety right in the European Union: what complete legal and administrative checklist should be followed to secure your rights?”

Conclusion

The grass on a tennis court can therefore sit at the centre of a genuine intellectual property strategy. The protected asset is not the court itself, but the plant varieties used to create it, while confidential know-how, seed mixtures and contractual arrangements may provide additional layers of protection. At elite level, the performance of a playing surface reflects the interaction between plant breeding, plant variety rights, agronomic expertise and disciplined contractual management.

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 assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

Can artificial turf be protected by plant variety rights?

No. Plant variety rights protect plant varieties, not artificial playing surfaces. Synthetic turf may instead fall within other intellectual property regimes, for example patents for technical innovations, designs for certain visual features or trademarks for commercial signs.

Can a protected turfgrass variety be used to breed a new variety?

Under EU law, breeding and developing other varieties fall within the exemption in Article 15 of Regulation No 2100/94. The exemption does not eliminate rights over an essentially derived variety, whose commercial exploitation may still require the authorization of the initial variety’s holder.

How long can a turfgrass variety remain protected?

The duration of protection depends on the relevant right and territory. In the European Union, protection generally runs until the end of the twenty-fifth calendar year following the year in which the right was granted, and until the end of the thirtieth year for varieties of vine and tree species. In France, Article L. 623-13 of the French Intellectual Property Code likewise provides for a general term of twenty-five years from the grant of the certificate, while certain categories, including perennial fodder grasses and legumes, benefit from a thirty-year term. The botanical classification of the variety and the applicable protection title should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Can a turfgrass variety be protected by both plant variety rights and a patent?

A plant variety as such is excluded from patentability. However, Article L. 611-19 of the French Intellectual Property Code allows an invention relating to plants to be patented where its technical feasibility is not limited to a particular plant variety and the other patentability requirements are met.

Can the name of a protected turfgrass variety be registered as a trademark?

The variety denomination must remain available to identify the variety. A separate trademark may accompany commercialization, but cannot prevent required use of the denomination. In practice, the varietal denomination and commercial brand are therefore often kept distinct.

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.

Introduction

A patent is a strategic asset when it protects useful technology, supports a competitive advantage and can be exploited, enforced or monetized. Filing and grant do not guarantee lasting value: a patent may remain in force while becoming misaligned with the company’s products, markets or strategy.

A patent audit compares the legal and technical position of a patent or portfolio with the company’s actual business strategy. It identifies rights to secure, strengthen, exploit, license, sell or, where justified, allow to lapse. It extends the logic of active trademark and patent portfolio management.

What is a patent audit?

A patent audit is a legal, technical and strategic review of a single patent or a portfolio. It covers ownership, administrative status, claim scope, patent families, related agreements, actual use of the technology and monetization opportunities.

It should answer four core questions: does the company own the rights? Are they in force and enforceable? Do they protect the technologies that currently create value? Are the cost and territorial scope still consistent with the relevant markets?

Why conduct a patent audit after filing?

Filing a patent starts a management phase. An audit moves the company from holding patents to managing them strategically, distinguishing core rights, peripheral patents, protection gaps and assets that may create value through licensing, assignment agreements or collaboration.

Technology roadmaps change: an initially secondary feature may become essential, while a historical patent may no longer cover the commercial product. IP audit and valuation therefore require regular alignment between law, technology and the business model.

For further information on the reasons for conducting a patent audit, we invite you to read our article: " Why conduct an audit of trademarks and patents? "

Why is a filed or granted patent not a static asset?

The filing or grant of a patent does not mark the end of the protection process. A patent must be monitored over time to ensure that it remains relevant in light of the company’s activities, technological developments and competitive environment.

Such monitoring also involves ensuring compliance with the main formalities required to keep the patent in force, in particular the payment of renewal fees to the INPI.

A patent should therefore not simply be retained in a portfolio: it should be regularly reassessed and integrated into an overall strategy for the protection, exploitation and enhancement of innovations.

What should be reviewed during a patent audit?

Ownership and chain of title

The first step is to verify the actual owner of the patent. Employee inventions are governed by the regime set out in Article L. 611-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code ; and the INPI stresses the importance of declaring employee inventions. For contractors, R&D partners or acquired businesses, the audit should verify assignments and the contractual chain, together with recordals required for third-party effect.

Validity and administrative status

The review covers filing and priority dates, renewal fees, deadlines, oppositions, limitations, licences and security interests. Official renewal-fee status and register extracts help reconcile internal records with public data.

Scope of the claims

The value of a patent depends on what its claims actually cover. A patent audit compares those claims with the product or process being exploited in order to identify unprotected features, overly narrow claims, potential design-around opportunities and, where appropriate, areas of vulnerability in the event of opposition or invalidity proceedings.

Business and territorial alignment

Each patent should be linked to a product, technology, R&D program or defensive objective. This mapping reveals unused rights, unprotected innovation and overlaps, while showing whether the protected countries still correspond to sales, manufacturing or competitive-risk territories.

Monetization opportunities

A patent may generate value through direct exploitation, licensing, sale, collaboration or its role as a barrier to entry. WIPO describes income, market and cost approaches to valuation. The audit prepares that economic valuation by first confirming the asset’s existence, ownership and exploitability.

When is a patent audit particularly useful?

A patent audit becomes especially important when third parties will scrutinize the portfolio or when its quality will influence a strategic decision, including:

• before a fundraising round, merger or acquisition, or asset sale;
• before a technology partnership, licence or co-development arrangement;
• before a product launch, to confirm that the available protection still matches the technology being commercialized;
• in the context of litigation, an infringement threat or a validity challenge;
• during a portfolio reorganization or a renewal-cost reduction program.

What benefits does a patent audit bring to a business?

A well-designed audit produces an action plan, not merely an inventory. It secures ownership, reduces administrative risk, aligns claim scope with the technology actually used and supports renewal-cost decisions. It also makes the portfolio clearer to management, investors and partners.

Most importantly, patents can be classified as rights to maintain and enforce, strengthen, license or sell, or no longer maintain. This prioritization supports a patent strategy aligned with the company’s actual trajectory.

Conclusion

A patent audit confirms that a portfolio remains legally robust, technically relevant, administratively controlled and economically useful. After filing, value depends on the quality of ongoing management as well as the original protection. Regular review turns the portfolio into a tool for risk control, negotiation and innovation value creation.

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 assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

Does a patent audit replace a freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis?

A patent audit primarily assesses the quality and usefulness of the company’s own rights. An FTO analysis looks outward, identifying third-party patents that may restrict the commercialization of a product or process. The two exercises are complementary, particularly before a launch or investment transaction.

Can a granted patent still be considered weak during due diligence?

Grant creates an enforceable right but does not eliminate every later challenge. Due diligence may revisit the chain of title, claim scope, relevant prior art, pending proceedings and the fit between the patent and the technology presented as strategically important.

Can an imperfect chain of title be regularized after grant?

In many situations, assignments, confirmatory documents or register entries may still be completed, subject to the specific legal position and any rights already acquired by third parties. The purpose of the audit is to identify these gaps early enough to determine the appropriate corrective measures.

Should a patent be abandoned if it is not directly used in a product?

A patent that is not currently embodied in a product may still have defensive value, block design-arounds, protect future technology or support a licensing strategy. The renewal decision should compare that strategic utility with the cost of maintaining the right and the realistic prospects for exploitation or monetization.

How should a portfolio combining French, European, Unitary and international patent families be audited?

The review should proceed title by title and family by family, covering status, actual territorial coverage, deadlines, recorded ownership, applicable claims and future costs. A PCT application, a European patent validated in several states and a Unitary Patent do not have the same territorial effects or maintenance regime, so the audit map must distinguish each route.

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.

Introduction

Brazil is one of Latin America’s most dynamic markets, and trademark protection is a key strategic priority for both foreign and domestic companies. Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) faces a considerable volume of registration applications, which can significantly extend examination timelines. In light of this, INPI has introduced an accelerated examination mechanism known as the « trâmite prioritário de marcas ».

This mechanism, governed by several successive administrative orders and currently structured around a pilot project, allows certain applicants to obtain a registration decision much faster than under the standard procedure.

The Brazilian expedited examination procedure (“trâmite prioritário”): what is it?

The « trâmite prioritário » refers to an accelerated examination procedure for trademark registration applications filed with Brazil’s INPI. This mechanism allows certain applications, when the required conditions are met, to be examined under a priority order distinct from the one applicable to the standard procedure.

Legal framework

The regulatory framework for priority trademark processing in Brazil has evolved significantly in 2025 and 2026. The instruments currently in force are as follows:

Several earlier ordinances have been revoked (Nos. 28/2025, 29/2025, 39/2025), reflecting INPI’s intention to progressively refine this mechanism.

Objectives of the mechanism

Priority trademark processing pursues two complementary objectives:

• Facilitating the resolution of trademark conflicts and disputes;
• Accelerating processes that foster innovation and growth in Brazil.

This mechanism is part of the pilot project, whose implementation is subject to continuous evaluation for improvement purposes. INPI publishes weekly statistics to ensure transparent monitoring of the mechanism.

Eligibility requirements and conditions for accessing the Brazilian expedited examination procedure

Brazil’s IP Office distinguishes between several ways of accessing the accelerated examination procedure: some are available free of charge to specific categories of beneficiaries, while others fall within the scope of the pilot project and are based on strategic or public policy grounds.

Free-of-charge access to priority processing

Certain applicants are entitled to free access to priority processing under the law. These include:

• Elderly persons;
• Persons with disabilities;
• Persons with serious illnesses;
• Legal entities classified under the Inova Simples program.

For these categories, priority processing is available free of charge, upon submission of the required supporting documents.

Access to priority processing on strategic or public policy grounds

For other applicants, the pilot project provides various priority treatment options based on strategic objectives or public policy considerations. This priority treatment is not automatic: the applicant must fall within one of the 13 eligibility situations defined by Brazil’s INPI. These include in particular:

• An opposition based on a right of precedence;
• The need to obtain registration in order to unlock public funding;
• The existence of court proceedings concerning the sign;
• A good or service linked to a patent benefiting from priority examination;
• Status as a scientific, technological, and innovation institution;
• Participation in an INPI mentoring program;
• A situation of public interest, national emergency, or connection to a government program;
• The need to obtain registration in order to access an online marketplace;
• Membership in or representation of traditional peoples or communities, or family farming;
• Start-up status;
• Certain applications relating to the Madrid Protocol;
• The existence of a reciprocity agreement on priority treatment with Brazil;
• The need to obtain registration in order to secure an administrative authorisation, permit, or concession.

The complete list of these grounds, along with the supporting documents required for each, is set out in normative Ordinance INPI/PR No. 66/2026, available on the official website of Brazil’s INPI.

The number of applications admitted may also be limited by category and by applicant.

The applicable fee is:

• BRL 890.00 at the standard rate;
• BRL 445.00 after a 50% reduction, in particular for micro-enterprises, individual micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses, as well as certain teaching and research institutions and certain public bodies.

Government modality (federal events)

A specific modality exists for federal government entities whose trademarks risk being unduly appropriated due to their exposure during major events. This modality can only be activated by the Secretariat of Social Communication of the Presidency of the Republic (SECOM).

How to file a request for expedited examination in Brazil?

Prerequisites

To file a request for priority processing, applicants must have already filed a trademark registration application with Brazil’s INPI, or have a pending petition. The file number assigned upon initial filing is required for the following steps.

Procedure steps

Step 1: Issuing the GRU

The first step consists of issuing an official payment slip (« Guia de Recolhimento da União » or « GRU ») via the portal: https://meu.inpi.gov.br/pag/. Issuing this slip is mandatory even where the service is free of charge.

Step 2: Paying the GRU

The corresponding fee, where applicable, must be paid.

Step 3: Completing the online form

The priority processing request form is available at: https://gru.inpi.gov.br/emarcas/. Mandatory documents not already included in the file must be attached. The applicant must certify the accuracy of the information provided.

Step 4: Monitoring the application

INPI evaluates priority processing requests in accordance with Ordinance No. 08/2022 and the specific Ordinances No. 66/2026 and No. 67/2026. The decision is published in the Official Gazette of Brazil’s INPI.

Statistics and pilot project monitoring

INPI publishes updated statistics each week covering:

• The number of procedures completed;
• The average decision time;
• The decisions issued within each modality.

This data allows applicants to assess the effectiveness of the mechanism and provides INPI with a management tool as part of the pilot project’s continuous improvement.

This statistical transparency also sends a positive signal to foreign companies considering investing in trademark protection in Brazil: it demonstrates INPI’s commitment to modernising its processes and reducing examination timelines.

Conclusion

Priority trademark processing represents a concrete opportunity for companies seeking to accelerate the protection of their intangible assets in Brazil. Governed by ordinances recently updated in 2026, this mechanism is now structured around a pilot project subject to quotas, which calls for strategic anticipation on the part of applicants.

Dreyfus Law Firm supports its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters, offering personalised advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of attorneys specialising in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Is the accelerated Brazilian examination procedure available to foreign companies?

Yes. Any company, regardless of nationality, may file a request for priority processing provided it has a pending trademark registration application with Brazil’s INPI. The involvement of a local representative (attorney or industrial property counsel) is mandatory for foreign applicants.

2. Can Brazil’s accelerated examination procedure be combined with a filing via the Madrid System?

Madrid System allows Brazil to be designated in an international trademark application. Once the national application has been generated under the Madrid procedure, it is in principle possible to request priority processing for that application, subject to meeting the applicable conditions.

3. What happens if my priority examination request is rejected?

If the priority processing request is rejected by INPI, the trademark registration application does not disappear: it simply continues to be processed in the standard examination queue. In certain cases, a new request may be filed if the conditions are met at a later date.

4. What is the limit on the number of priority processing requests a single company may file?

Brazil’s INPI has set a cap of 10 priority processing requests per applicant. In addition, in 2026, INPI may receive up to 3,000 applications, split into two four-month periods of 1,500 applications each: from 1 May to 31 August, and from 1 September to 31 December. Within each period, at least 100 places are reserved for each of the priority-treatment eligibility grounds.

5. Must supporting documents be submitted in Portuguese?

Yes. Proceedings before Brazil’s INPI are conducted in Portuguese. All documents submitted in support of a priority processing request must be drafted or translated into Portuguese. Foreign companies must ensure the linguistic compliance of their file, which is a further reason to engage a local representative.

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.