News

Introduction

We are witnessing the emergence of an unprecedented phenomenon in luxury goods counterfeiting: Pingti. These high-end replicas reproduce the materials, design, and finishes of iconic models with precision, yet bear no logo or visible brand name. They attract consumers seeking discretion and affordable prestige, while undermining traditional brand protection strategies and posing new legal challenges.

What is a Pingti?

Definition and characteristics

The term “Pingti” originates from Mandarin and can be translated as “decoy” or “sophisticated fake.” It refers to ultra-realistic reproductions of luxury goods that:

• Faithfully replicate the design, proportions, and finishes of the original items;
• Often use the same materials, or materials of equivalent quality;
• Are sometimes manufactured in the same factories as the originals, outside official production lines;
• Bear no logo, brand name, or protected distinctive sign, making legal identification more complex;
• Align with the “quiet luxury” trend, favouring discreet elegance and recognition through design rather than a displayed brand.

Consumer appeal

Sold at prices up to ten times lower than the originals, Pingti appeal to consumers seeking the quality and prestige of luxury goods without paying full price. Their spread is amplified by social media platforms such as TikTok, comparative videos, and specialised forums.

Legal grey area

In the absence of a brand affixed to them, Pingti often escape the scope of traditional counterfeiting laws. However, when they reproduce a design protected by a registered design right or copyright, they may be subject to sanctions. Their legal classification therefore largely depends on the type of protection held over the copied product.

Risks associated with Pingti

Erosion of exclusivity

By multiplying visually similar imitations, Pingti undermine the unique and exclusive character of luxury goods.

Economic impact

• Diverting part of sales towards non-official products;
• Putting downward pressure on prices and margins for luxury houses;
• Increasing monitoring and litigation costs.

Brand image risks

The association of an iconic design with a lower-priced product, even of good quality, diminishes the prestige and perceived value of the brand.

Strategies to combat Pingti

Strengthening intellectual property rights

Registering designs protects the aesthetic appearance of products. This is an effective and swift tool within the European Union.

Complementary legal tools

In certain cases, copyright can protect original creations. Patents may secure technical innovations incorporated into products.

Strict supplier contracts

Exclusivity and confidentiality clauses must be included in manufacturing contracts to limit the risk of design diversion.

Legal actions not based on trademarks

Even without a brand affixed, actions may be brought on the grounds of unfair competition, parasitism, or harm to reputation.

Market monitoring and customs intervention

Implementing monitoring systems on marketplaces and working with customs authorities helps detect and intercept these products before they reach the market.

Conclusion

Fighting Pingti requires an approach that combines legal protection, contractual vigilance, and active market surveillance. Luxury brands must act in a coordinated manner to preserve their exclusivity, protect their image, and anticipate new forms of counterfeiting.

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 is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. What exactly is a Pingti?
A luxury product reproduced identically in its materials and design, but without any logo or visible brand.

2. What is the difference between a “dupe” and a classic counterfeit?
A Pingti aims for a quality almost identical to the original, whereas a “dupe” is an openly lower-quality imitation, and a classic counterfeit also reproduces the brand.

3. Can action be taken without a logo or visible brand?
Yes, through design registrations, copyright protection, or actions for unfair competition and parasitism.

4. What legal tools are most effective against Pingti?
Design registrations, copyright, unfair competition laws, and customs enforcement.

5. How can Pingti be monitored and quickly addressed?
By combining active monitoring of marketplaces, automated alerts, and immediate takedown procedures.

Introduction

Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence, exemplified by tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude, have profoundly transformed how we design and produce content. From text to images, and from video to audio, AI-assisted creations are now ubiquitous in communication, marketing, and production strategies. Yet behind this technological revolution lies a critical legal question : who actually owns this content ? Copyright law, designed for human-made works, faces a new paradigm. Understanding the applicable rules, the risks, and the measures to be implemented is now a strategic priority for companies, creators, and institutions seeking to combine innovation with legal compliance.

Legal framework for ai-generated content

Only human creation is protected

Under French law, Article L.111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code specifies that only the author, defined as a natural person, can claim protection for a work of the mind. This requirement of a “personal imprint” automatically excludes works generated exclusively by an algorithm. An image, text, or musical composition produced without significant human intervention does not meet the required originality criterion. Case law and doctrinal positions confirm this interpretation, aligned with EU Directive 2001/29/EC and WIPO guidelines. AI, as a mere tool, cannot be granted authorship status.

Transparency obligations and legislative developments

While current law does not recognize AI as having creative autonomy, regulations are evolving to govern its use. Directive (EU) 2019/790 already provides exceptions for text and data mining, while safeguarding protected works. The forthcoming AI Act, now in its final stages, will require AI providers to document and publish summaries of protected data used to train their models. This obligation aims to enhance traceability and reduce the risk of unlawful reuse of pre-existing works, giving rights holders a new means of control.

Authorship and ownership of copyright

User or developer : who is the author ?

Determining authorship in the context of conversational AI depends on the nature and scope of human intervention. If the user formulates precise prompts, refines the outputs, and incorporates substantial creative choices, they may claim ownership of the original parts of the work. Conversely, the AI developer retains rights to the software, architecture, and code, but not to the specific outputs. This distinction, enshrined in doctrine and contractual clauses, is essential to avoid confusion over the intellectual property of generated content.

The decisive role of terms of use

The terms of use of AI platforms are crucial in allocating rights. For example, OpenAI’s terms state that the user owns the rights to the outputs, provided they comply with applicable laws, including copyright. However, such clauses do not exempt the user from liability in the event of third-party rights infringement. Extra caution is therefore needed in commercial exploitation to ensure that generated content does not reproduce, even partially, a protected work.

Legal risks of using a chatbot

Risks of direct or indirect infringement

Using a chatbot does not shield one from liability for infringement. Generated content may, intentionally or not, reproduce all or part of an existing protected work. Copying a literary text, a musical passage, or a protected visual even in modified form can constitute a violation of rights. This risk is heightened by AI’s ability to memorize and output fragments learned during training. Businesses should implement systematic verification procedures before public release.

Training data and pre-existing works

AI models are trained on massive datasets, sometimes including protected works collected without explicit authorization. This practice raises major legal issues, particularly concerning reproduction and public communication rights. The lawsuit brought by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft perfectly illustrates this problem: the newspaper claims its editorial content was used without a license to train their models. Such actions are likely to increase as rights holders become aware of the use of their works.

Strategies to secure the use of ai content

Creative and Documented Human Intervention

To qualify for copyright protection, the user must demonstrate a genuine creative contribution. This requirement entails :

• Retaining the prompts and instructions used to generate the content, in order to trace the creative process.
• Documenting the artistic and editorial choices (selection, modifications, additions) made to the AI-generated output.
• Archiving each stage of production to establish a chronological record of the work undertaken.
• Highlighting the human-added value compared to mere automated AI production.
• Enhancing the credibility and legal standing of the work through a complete file that can be produced in the event of a dispute.

Contractual clauses and compliance audits

Contracts with service providers or partners should include precise clauses governing AI use. Recommended provisions include warranties of non-infringement, transparency obligations regarding the origin of content, and a clear allocation of responsibilities. Regular audits, particularly using similarity detection tools, help secure distribution and avoid costly disputes. This is especially relevant in sectors with high creative intensity.

International perspectives and legislative developments

Divergent approaches across jurisdictions

In France and the European Union, the requirement for human originality is non-negotiable. In the United States, the US Copyright Office refuses to register works generated without significant human contribution. However, some countries, such as the United Kingdom and India, are exploring hybrid regimes where the programmer may be recognized as the author. These divergences complicate the international management of rights, forcing businesses to adapt their strategies by jurisdiction.

Upcoming reforms and impact on users

The forthcoming EU AI Act will mark a turning point by imposing transparency obligations regarding training data and regulating high-risk AI systems. Meanwhile, WIPO is conducting consultations to propose a harmonized international framework, potentially introducing new forms of protection adapted to AI. These reforms, although adopted but not yet fully applicable, could profoundly alter the way AI-generated content is exploited and protected, prompting stakeholders to anticipate their future obligations now.

Conclusion

Protection for AI-generated content remains contingent on substantial and identifiable human creative input. Businesses and creators must integrate this requirement into their processes, combining documentation, verification, and contractual safeguards. The issue is not only legal but also central to the economic value of works and the management of associated risks.

Dreyfus & Associés is in partnership with a global network of intellectual property lawyers
Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Is content generated by ChatGPT automatically protected by copyright ?
No, only a work with original human contribution can qualify for protection.

2. Who owns the rights: the user or the AI developer ?
Generally the user, unless otherwise stipulated in the terms of use or a specific contract.

3. What are the main copyright risks associated with chatbots ?
Unauthorized reproduction of protected works or use of training data covered by rights.

4. Are the rules the same in Europe and the United States ?
No, both require human involvement, but with differing criteria and practices.

5. What clauses should be included in a contract to regulate AI use ?
Clauses on ownership, non-infringement warranties, transparency, and allocation of responsibilities.

Introduction

Since January 1, 2026, the 13th edition of the International Nice Classification (“NCL 13-2026”) has entered into force in the jurisdictions that are party to the Nice Agreement. This update applies to all new trademark applications filed as from that date. As the wording of goods and services has evolved significantly across several classes, this reform has direct consequences for filing strategies, scope of protection, and the management of global trademark portfolios.

Understanding the Nice Classification

Origins and legal function

The Nice Classification is an international system that categorizes goods and services into 45 classes used for trademark registration purposes:

• Goods: Classes 1 to 34
• Services: Classes 35 to 45

It was established under the Nice Agreement (1957) in order to harmonize classification practices among national and international trademark offices, thereby facilitating filings, prior art searches, opposition proceedings, and contractual negotiations.

Why a 13th edition in 2026?

The previous version (NCL 12-2023) no longer adequately reflected current market and technological developments. NCL 13-2026 was introduced in order to:

• Clarify overloaded classes (notably Class 9)
• Adapt the classification to new uses and emerging technologies
• Reduce overlaps and ambiguities in the wording of goods and services

Key changes in NCL 13-2026

Major reclassifications of goods

– Optical products (glasses, lenses, accessories)
Prescription glasses, sunglasses, frames, and contact lenses have been transferred from Class 9 to Class 10 (medical devices). This reorganization is based on their medical or therapeutic function rather than their electronic nature.

– Essences and essential oils
The classification of these products now depends on their intended use:

• Essential oils for cosmetic purposes → Class 3
• Essential oils for medical/therapeutic purposes → Class 5
• Essential oils for food flavoring purposes → Class 30

– Emergency and rescue vehicles
Fire trucks, ambulances, lifeboats, and similar vehicles have moved from Class 9 to Class 12, consolidating all vehicles within the same class.

– Other reclassifications

• Heated clothing → from Class 11 to Class 25
• Further clarification regarding electronic equipment and software in Class 9

Services and new definitions

NCL 13-2026 also introduces changes in the services sector. Certain services related to artificial intelligence (AI as a Service – AIaaS) are now clarified within Class 42, reflecting the realities of the modern digital economy.

Practical impact on trademark filings

Selection of classes for filings as from 2026

From January 1, 2026 onwards, all trademark applications (national, regional, or international via the Madrid System) must be classified in accordance with NCL 13-2026. Any misclassification may result in office actions, procedural delays, or additional costs.

Pending applications and risk of objections

Applications filed before January 1, 2026 will continue to be examined under NCL 12-2025. However, objections may arise where the wording already corresponds to a new entry introduced under NCL 13-2026.

Consequences for existing portfolios

Clearance searches and trademark monitoring

From 2026 onwards, search and monitoring practices must simultaneously consider both the former and the new editions in order to avoid blind spots in enforcement and risk analysis strategies.

Renewals and official fees: INPI vs EUIPO/WIPO

The French Trademark Office (INPI) may require reclassification of specifications upon renewal from 2026 onwards, potentially triggering additional fees. By contrast, the EUIPO and WIPO generally do not automatically reclassify existing registrations.

Proactive strategies to implement

Comprehensive audit of specifications

A detailed audit of the specifications of pending and future applications is essential in order to prevent gaps in protection, particularly in sectors affected by significant reclassifications.

Licence agreements and coexistence agreements

Contracts referring solely to class numbers, without a detailed description of goods and services, may become outdated or contentious. A legal audit and revision of contractual wording are strongly recommended.

Updating portfolio management tools

Internal databases, monitoring tools, and classification protocols must be updated to integrate NCL 13-2026. This also includes standard filing templates and internal filing workflows.

Conclusion

The Nice Classification NCL 13-2026 is not merely an administrative update. It introduces significant reclassifications, generates direct operational consequences for trademark protection, and requires structured adjustments to intellectual property strategies.

Careful anticipation remains essential in order to secure your rights, optimize future filings, and ensure robust legal coverage.

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

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Does the Nice Classification 2026 modify the legal scope of my trademark protection?

No. The classification has no retroactive effect on the intrinsic scope of rights conferred by a trademark. However, the exact wording of the specification remains decisive. Future reclassifications may influence the interpretation of imprecise wording in litigation.

2. Will the 2026 update affect opposition proceedings?

Indirectly, yes. Oppositions will continue to rely on the comparison of goods and services as registered. However, changes in classification may influence how offices assess similarity between certain goods.

3. Is the Nice Classification mandatory in all countries?

Most jurisdictions apply the Nice Classification, although certain national practices may vary. Particular attention should be paid to specific local requirements in strategic filings.

4. Can a classification error invalidate a trademark?

An incorrect class does not automatically invalidate a trademark. However, an overly narrow or inappropriate designation may limit the scope of protection or weaken the trademark in non-use cancellation proceedings.

5. Does the 2026 update impact international clearance searches?

Yes. Search tools must incorporate correspondences between former and new classes. A search limited to a single edition may overlook relevant prior rights, especially in sectors affected by class transfers.

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

On April 10, 2025, the Paris Judicial Court (RG No. 22/10720) delivered a landmark ruling that marks a turning point for the fashion and luxury industries. The case opposed Hermès, a global icon of craftsmanship and haute couture, to an upcycling atelier that had transformed second-hand Hermès scarves into decorated denim jackets.

This case highlights the growing tension between sustainable fashion, which promotes reuse and transformation of existing products, and the strict protection of intellectual property rights. While upcycling is appealing for its ecological and creative dimensions, it cannot serve as an excuse to violate the exclusive rights attached to trademarks and original works. The ruling reaffirms that the ethical and aesthetic enhancement of a product must be carried out within a legal framework that respects intellectual property rights.

The Hermès case: facts and decision

1.1 Background of the case

An independent fashion house offered for sale jackets made from second-hand Hermès scarves through an online store and Instagram. Each item was promoted as unique, featuring the name “Hermès” in product descriptions and hashtags. The company held no authorization from the brand or its rights holders. Hermès filed a civil action for trademark infringement and copyright violation, claiming that its designs were being misappropriated for commercial purposes.

1.2 Sanctions imposed by the court

The Paris Judicial Court found both trademark and copyright infringement and ordered the immediate cessation of all sales. The company was ordered to pay substantial damages for both material and moral prejudice. The infringing jackets were seized and scheduled for destruction. The judges emphasized that the visibility of the brand and the unauthorized transformation of the scarves made the infringement manifest. This ruling now stands as a key precedent on upcycling in France.

Trademark and copyright: what protections apply

2.1 Protection of luxury brands

The Hermès trademark, first registered in 1936, benefits from enhanced protection under Articles L.711-1 and following of the French Intellectual Property Code. Any use of a name, logo or distinctive sign without authorization constitutes infringement, even if the sign is transformed in a creative way. The exhaustion of trademark rights does not apply to substantially modified goods. A scarf incorporated as a component into a jacket is considered a new product and does not fall under the exhaustion exception. Designers must therefore be highly cautious when using the Hermès name in upcycling projects.

2.2 Hermès scarves as original works

Each Hermès scarf is considered an original graphic work, protected by copyright from the moment of its creation. The choices of color, pattern, and composition demonstrate sufficient creative input to justify copyright protection. Altering a scarf to integrate it into a garment offered for sale constitutes an act of reproduction or public communication that requires the author’s or right holder’s prior authorization. In this case, the court rejected any claim of copyright exhaustion, considering that the transformation amounted to a new commercial exploitation.

The environmental argument is not enough

3.1 Upcycling as justification

The defendants argued that their creations aligned with sustainable fashion values and aimed to combat textile overconsumption. Their defense was based on the idea of giving second life to existing scarves and thereby reducing environmental impact. While this narrative may be persuasive to the public, it has no exculpatory effect under IP law. Courts primarily assess economic exploitation and damage to trademark and copyright owners. Good intentions are not sufficient to excuse infringement.

3.2 The court’s rejection of environmental claims

The Paris Judicial Court confirmed that environmental aims do not justify illegal commercial exploitation. The jackets were intended for sale, and their promotion relied on the Hermès name and reputation, without permission. French case law consistently holds that environmental objectives do not override intellectual property rights. For creators, this means that any upcycling initiative must be preceded by legal due diligence; otherwise, the risk of liability remains significant.

What case law says about the use of brand elements

4.1 Exhaustion of rights and its limitations

The exhaustion doctrine allows for the resale of genuine products once placed on the market by the trademark owner or with their consent. However, this principle does not apply when the product has been substantially altered. In this case, transforming scarves into jackets was deemed sufficient to disqualify the exhaustion exception. This interpretation protects brand owners from dilution and unauthorized repurposing of their image. Creators must understand and apply this principle to avoid infringement.

4.2 Permitted use under the French intellectual property code

Article L.713-6 paragraph 3 of the French Intellectual Property Code authorizes limited use of a trademark only when strictly necessary to describe the product. In this case, the company used “Hermès” in product titles, descriptions, and hashtags for marketing purposes. This use was found to be excessive and aimed at capitalizing on the brand’s reputation. Creators engaging in upcycling must ensure that any reference to a brand is neutral, descriptive, and proportionate, to avoid infringing trademark rights.

How to create legally with luxury textiles

5.1 Best practices for lawful upcycling

• Use neutral fabrics: without logos or recognizable elements.
• Obtain proper authorization: when using any protected element.
• Avoid visible references: remove the brand name from all creations.
• Limit communication: do not promote products using the brand’s reputation.

5.2 Consulting experts before commercialization

• Consult an IP attorney: to legally secure the project.
• Audit the creations: to identify risks in advance.
• Prevent legal disputes: by anticipating issues early.
• Pursue official partnerships: to combine creativity with legal compliance.

Conclusion

The Hermès case makes it clear that upcycling does not exempt creators from complying with intellectual property rights. Luxury trademarks and original works benefit from robust protection under French law, which prevails over ecological or creative justifications. Designers who wish to transform branded goods must seek prior authorization or adapt their practices accordingly. Legal foresight, supported by expert advice, is essential to combining innovation with legality.

Dreyfus & associés relies on a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property, enabling the firm to support its clients in cross-border creative ventures while ensuring compliance with IP rights worldwide.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Can I transform a Hermès scarf for personal use?
Yes, provided the use remains strictly private and non-commercial.

2. Is commercial upcycling a legal exception under IP law?
No, there is no exception for upcycling under the French Intellectual Property Code.

3. Can I mention Hermès on my website if I use its scarve?
Only in a neutral, purely descriptive way, without promotional intent.

4. How can I avoid infringement when upcycling?
By removing logos, using unprotected fabrics, or securing a proper license.

5. Is a partnership with the brand required for resale?
Yes, if your creations include identifiable elements of the brand, authorization is necessary.

Introduction

In 2026, domain name litigation unfolds against an ever-denser digital backdrop: according to the Domain Name Industry Brief, the first quarter of 2026 closed with 392.5 million domain names registered across all extensions. For businesses, this growth multiplies points of contact with internet users, but it also increases the risks of abusive registrations, impersonation or confusion with their distinctive signs.

A misappropriated domain name can divert internet users, facilitate online fraud or harm a trademark’s image. The scale of the phenomenon is confirmed: according to a communiqué published on 14 January 2026, WIPO handled more than 6,200 domain name disputes in 2025, its highest volume to date. The response must therefore be swift and tailored to the extension concerned.

Resolution mechanisms vary according to the extension: the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) remains the benchmark procedure for many generic domains, such as .com, .net or .org, while certain national extensions have their own dedicated mechanisms, such as SYRELI or PARL Expert for .fr. This diversity makes it essential to identify, from the outset, the most appropriate route to obtain the deletion, suspension or transfer of the disputed domain name.

What is a domain name dispute?

A domain name dispute arises when a name registered by a third-party conflicts with the rights or legitimate interests of another person, in particular by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark or a distinctive sign. The rights that may be invoked vary, however, according to the extension and the applicable procedure: the UDRP focuses on trademarks, whereas certain national procedures, such as SYRELI or PARL Expert, have a broader scope.

These disputes often originate in the “first come, first served” principle: an available domain name can be registered quickly, without any systematic prior check of third-party rights. This flexibility makes it easier to develop online projects, but it can also enable abusive registrations intended to divert traffic, mislead internet users or profit from a company’s reputation.

The situations encountered are varied, and the analysis must therefore always take into account the name concerned, its use, the rights invoked and the apparent intention of the holder.

The UDRP procedure: the international standard for domain name disputes

The UDRP procedure (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) is the principal extrajudicial mechanism for resolving domain name disputes. Established by ICANN, it applies to many generic extensions, in particular .com, .net, .org and .info, as well as to several new extensions.

Its objective is simple: to enable a trademark owner to obtain the rapid transfer or deletion of an abusively registered domain name without bringing traditional court proceedings. The procedure is administered by accredited centres, including the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

To obtain the transfer of a disputed domain name under a UDRP procedure, the complainant must establish three cumulative conditions:

The UDRP is particularly well suited to cases of cybersquatting, typosquatting, phishing, fake official sites or abusive redirection. It is, however, less appropriate for complex commercial disputes, conflicts between former partners, or situations that require an in-depth judicial analysis of the parties’ rights.

Fast-track UDRP: a new route for straightforward cases

Since 9 March 2026, WIPO has offered an optional priority processing service for UDRP complaints, known as the UDRP Priority Service. This mechanism speeds up certain cases without altering the substantive UDRP criteria: the complainant must still demonstrate the similarity with its trademark, the holder’s absence of rights or legitimate interest, and the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.

This service has several practical features:

– it is optional and subject to acceptance by the WIPO Center;
– it concerns cases that can be examined by a single panellist;
– it is limited to a maximum of five domain names held by the same registrant;
– any request for a three-member panel triggers a return to the standard UDRP procedure;
– a decision may be issued within approximately one month from the commencement of the procedure, subject to the case being accepted into the priority service and to the normal course of the proceedings;
– the announced fees are USD 4,000 for a complaint covering one to five domain names held by the same registrant, comprising USD 1,000 in administrative fees and USD 3,000 in panellist fees.

The fast-track UDRP differs from the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension System). The URS allows a domain name to be rapidly suspended in certain clear-cut cases, but permits neither its transfer nor its definitive cancellation. The UDRP priority service may therefore be useful where the infringement is clear, where transfer of the domain name is sought and where speed is a strategic priority.

SYRELI and PARL Expert: the French procedures for .fr

Disputes relating to .fr domain names, as well as to certain overseas extensions managed by AFNIC such as .re, .yt, .pm, .wf and .tf, are governed by specific mechanisms based on French law. Two extrajudicial procedures may be considered: SYRELI and PARL Expert. Both make it possible to seek the deletion or transfer of a disputed domain name, although without obtaining damages.

These procedures differ from the UDRP in their scope. Whereas the UDRP focuses on trademarks, the French procedures can take into account other protected rights, such as a company name, a trade name, a surname, an earlier domain name or certain personality rights. The applicant must establish that the domain name falls within one of the cases provided for in article L.45-2 of the CPCE and that it has standing to act. Where the dispute concerns an infringement of earlier rights, it must also show that the holder cannot justify a legitimate interest or good-faith use.

In practice, SYRELI is often preferred where the infringement is clear: reproduction of a distinctive sign, parking page, typosquatting or a manifest absence of legitimate interest. PARL Expert may be better suited where the case calls for a finer legal analysis, for example in the presence of an alleged descriptive use, a serious challenge by the holder or a risk of court proceedings.

In both cases, precise evidence must be gathered: trademark titles or material establishing the rights invoked, screenshots, the domain name’s usage history, any correspondence, indicia of bad faith, redirections or technical elements revealing fraudulent use.

Foreign procedures and national extensions: a case-by-case approach

The procedure applicable to an extension depends first on the extension concerned and on the rules, incorporated into the registration agreement. For gTLDs, the UDRP is generally incorporated into the contracts entered into with registrars. For national or regional extensions, each registry may provide its own dispute resolution mechanism or adopt a model close to the UDRP.

A degree of convergence nevertheless exists: many mechanisms require proof of earlier rights, the holder’s absence of legitimate interest and/or abusive conduct in the registration or use of the domain name. However, the rights that may be invoked, the bad-faith criteria, the timeframes, the costs and the possible outcomes all vary according to the extension concerned.

How to identify the applicable procedure?

The applicable procedure depends first on the extension concerned, but also on the rules incorporated into the domain name’s registration agreement. For generic extensions such as .com, .net or .org, the UDRP is generally incorporated into the contract entered into with the registrar. For a .fr domain name, the SYRELI and PARL Expert procedures are, in principle, the routes to consider first. For certain national or sector-specific extensions, the rules specific to the registry concerned must be checked; they may provide for a specific procedure, a UDRP-inspired mechanism or, conversely, point towards court or amicable action.

The choice of procedure then depends on the objective pursued. The UDRP allows the transfer or deletion of a domain name, whereas the URS is limited to its suspension. The French procedures, for their part, make it possible to seek the deletion or transfer of a domain name falling under AFNIC. If the dispute involves a former partner, a contract, a claim for damages or a complex challenge to the parties’ rights, court action may be more appropriate.

Practical examples of common situations

Recent decisions illustrate these situations without altering the analysis of principle. In matters of phishing or impersonation, the Forvis Mazars Group v. Name Redacted case, WIPO No. D2025-0175, decision of 13 March 2025, concerning the domain name mazarsfrance.com, shows that the fraudulent use of a domain name reproducing a trademark with the addition of a geographical term, for the purposes of impersonation or email fraud, can establish the absence of rights or legitimate interests as well as bad faith, and justify the transfer of the domain name under the UDRP.

For .fr domain names, the PARL Expert decisions No. EXPERT-2025-01154, e-sas-carrefour.fr, of 1 July 2025, and No. EXPERT-2025-01159, mgmt-carrefour.fr, of 7 August 2025, illustrate the value of the procedure where the disputed domain name reproduces a well-known distinctive sign without apparent authorisation. They also serve as a reminder that the absence of an active site, or redirection to a mere blank or holding page, does not necessarily rule out the infringement, where the circumstances of the case reveal a risk of confusion, an absence of legitimate interest and, where applicable, a risk of fraudulent use.

Conversely, the Dietmar Hopp SAS v. Franck Chantoiseau, SCI Les Amis Vino case, WIPO No. D2026-1131, decision of 4 May 2026, concerning the domain name domaineterreblanche.com, illustrates the limits of these procedures. Where the domain name consists of evocative, common, or independently usable terms, the mere existence of an earlier trademark is not sufficient to obtain its transfer: the complainant must demonstrate, in a precise and detailed manner, the absence of the holder’s rights or legitimate interests, as well as its registration and use in bad faith.

Preventing domain name disputes

The best strategy remains preventive. A company must first ensure that its essential domain names are properly registered, renewed and centralised. Many incidents arise from a missed renewal, loss of access to the registrar account or poorly documented ownership. It is therefore advisable to identify strategic names, verify the declared holders, secure access and put renewal alerts in place.

Monitoring is also essential. It allows the rapid detection of registrations close to a trademark, typographical variants, relevant new extensions and names likely to be used for fraud. The earlier the detection, the more effective the available actions. This vigilance must also take account of the new ICANN cycle for generic extensions, whose 2026 application window is open from 30 April to 12 August 2026. The gradual arrival of new extensions may alter monitoring perimeters, particularly for trademark heavily exposed internationally.

Companies exposed internationally have an interest in identifying the extensions relevant to their activity, in order to anticipate the risks of abusive registration or confusion with their trademarks.

Companies must also keep evidence. In the event of a dispute, it is useful to have dated screenshots, material relating to the use of the domain name, proof of the trademark’s reputation, copies of fraudulent emails, or technical information about the site and its hosting. These elements may be decisive in a UDRP, SYRELI or PARL Expert procedure.

Finally, the domain name strategy must be coordinated with the trademark strategy. Filing a trademark, registering consistent domain names, monitoring important extensions and reacting swiftly to infringements help limit the risks of confusion and preserve customer trust.

Conclusion

A domain name dispute is not merely a technical or administrative conflict. Where a name reproduces a trademark, diverts internet users or serves as a vehicle for fraud, it can directly affect the trust of customers, partners and employees.

The UDRP, SYRELI and PARL Expert procedures, or the mechanisms specific to certain extensions, offer rapid responses, but their effectiveness depends on the framing of the case: the rights that may be invoked, the use observed, indicia of bad faith, urgency and the objective sought.

For businesses, domain names must therefore be treated as trust assets: they must be identified, monitored, secured and defended with the same rigour as other distinctive signs.

FAQ

What should I do if a third party has registered a domain name reproducing my trademark?
The first step is to preserve the evidence: a screenshot of the site, the date of consultation, the apparent identity of the holder, the use made of the domain name and any associated emails. You must then identify the extension concerned in order to determine the applicable procedure: UDRP for many generic extensions, SYRELI or PARL Expert for .fr, or a local procedure for certain national extensions.

Does the UDRP allow damages to be obtained?
No. The UDRP only allows the transfer or deletion of the disputed domain name. If the company wishes to obtain compensation, it will need to consider separate court action.

What is the difference between UDRP and URS?
The UDRP leads to a decision that may result in the transfer or deletion of the domain name. The URS is a faster procedure, but limited to the suspension of the domain name. It does not allow the name to be recovered.

Can action be taken against an inactive domain name?
Yes, in certain cases. The absence of an active site is not enough to exclude bad faith. The circumstances must be analysed: the trademark’s reputation, the identity of the domain name, the absence of a legitimate explanation, the technical configuration, the holder’s history or indicia of preparation for fraudulent use.

Can a company automatically recover a domain name matching its trademark?
No. Owning a trademark does not automatically entitle the owner to all corresponding domain names. The applicant must demonstrate the conditions specific to the chosen procedure, in particular the holder’s absence of legitimate interest and, under the UDRP, registration and use in bad faith.

Which procedure should be chosen for a .fr domain name?
For a .fr domain name, the SYRELI and PARL Expert procedures are generally the routes to consider first. The choice between the two will depend on the complexity of the case, the rights invoked, the urgency and the strategy sought.

Introduction

The proliferation of dupes imitation products that mimic the aesthetics of branded goods has become a major concern for the fashion, luxury, cosmetics, and electronics industries. These items, widely sold online through marketplaces and social media, not only capture part of the market but also dilute brand value and erode consumer trust.

Fighting dupes today requires more than traditional anti-counterfeiting actions. It calls for a comprehensive strategy combining IP registrations, digital monitoring, swift enforcement measures, and an intelligent use of the new EU design reform, which modernizes protection and enforcement tools.

Understanding dupes: nature, risks, and challenges

A dupe is an imitation product that replicates the appearance or style of an original item without being an exact counterfeit. Unlike traditional counterfeits, dupes often operate in a gray zone:

• Mimicking the visual identity of the original (shape, patterns, packaging), sometimes with slight modifications to avoid direct legal exposure;
• Leveraging brand awareness by presenting themselves as “inspired by” the original, particularly through viral content on TikTok and Instagram;
• Undermining brand value by associating inferior quality with the original product in the eyes of consumers.

Dupes are particularly prevalent in:

• Fashion and accessories (bags, sneakers, jewelry);
• Cosmetics and perfumes (look-alike bottles and packaging);
• Consumer electronics (earbuds, smartwatches, branded-style accessories).

They represent a commercial, reputational, and sometimes safety risk, especially in sectors where consumer trust is critical.

Deploying an effective anti-dupe strategy

A robust anti-dupe plan relies on three pillars: legal protection, market monitoring, and rapid enforcement.

2.1 Securing intellectual property rights

• Register all designs with the EUIPO and/or national offices for significant creations;
• File 3D or semi-figurative trademarks, especially for iconic packaging;
• Document originality through dated prototypes, photos, and digital proof to support enforcement actions.

Without properly secured rights, fighting dupes becomes significantly harder.

2.2 Implementing proactive and multi-channel monitoring

Modern dupes spread across digital ecosystems:

• Marketplaces like Amazon, AliExpress, and Vinted;
• Social media such as TikTok, Instagram, and Pinterest, which accelerate trends;
• Search engines and sponsored ads, where dupes may appear before the original.

An efficient monitoring system combines:

• Automated detection tools (reverse image search, web crawlers);
• Customs alerts to intercept suspicious imports;
• Tracking of influencers promoting look-alike products.

2.3 Using all enforcement tools

Once a dupe is identified, brands can act through:

1. Online takedowns
   • Using DMCA or platform-specific IP complaint tools;
   • Rapid removal is often possible if designs are properly registered.
2. Customs interventions
   • Filing a Customs Action Request (AFA) enables seizure of infringing goods at the border.
3. Targeted legal actions
   • Civil (design or trademark infringement, unfair competition) to obtain injunctions and damages;
   • Criminal, where organized or large-scale dupe networks are involved.
4. Brand communication
   • Educating consumers and distributors reduces tolerance for dupes and mitigates reputational risk.

Leveraging the EU design reform

The 2025 EU design reform modernizes protection mechanisms and directly strengthens anti-dupe strategies.

3.1 Strengthened protection adapted to digital markets

• Clearer definitions of “design” and “complex product”;
• Full protection for digital and 3D designs;
• Faster and cheaper online registration processes.

3.2 Simplified cross-border enforcement

• Single actions can now cover multiple EU Member States;
• Harmonized, accelerated procedures make it easier to block dupes before they saturate the market.

3.3 Synergy between anti-dupe measures and the reform

By combining:

• Systematic design and trademark registrations,
• Active digital surveillance,
• Use of EU-wide enforcement tools,

companies can deploy a cohesive, effective response to the growing dupe phenomenon.

Conclusion

Dupes are a persistent and fast-evolving threat to brand value and creative industries. Through a combination of proactive IP management, market monitoring, rapid enforcement, and the strategic use of the EU design reform, businesses can protect their creations, maintain market integrity, and strengthen their competitive position.

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 is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. What is a dupe?
An imitation product that mimics a brand’s style without being an exact copy.

2. Why is it a problem?
Dupes devalue the brand, create confusion, and harm its reputation.

3. How can you protect your creations?
Register your designs, document originality, and monitor the market.

4. How does the EU design reform help?
It simplifies filings, strengthens protection, and enables faster EU-wide actions.

5. What are the key steps to fight dupes?
Register, monitor, and act quickly (takedown, customs, legal actions).

Introduction

In today’s digital landscape, businesses and individuals often face defamatory or unlawful content that is disseminated online, frequently hosted abroad. While the global removal of such content can be complex, geo-blocking, which involves restricting access to content based on the user’s geographical location, has become an increasingly effective and adopted solution. In its ruling of June 13, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal acknowledged that, under certain conditions, geo-blocking content from France can be considered a removal, thus fulfilling the legal requirements for content withdrawal. This legal development offers a way to balance the protection of individuals’ and businesses’ rights against online infringements, while addressing territorial concerns in a globalized digital environment

Definition of geo-blocking

1.1 What is geo-blocking ?

Geo-blocking is a technical measure used to restrict access to online content based on the user’s geographic location, typically identified through their IP address. It allows a website or specific page to be blocked for users connecting from a particular country. This mechanism is widely used in fields such as intellectual property rights, audiovisual broadcasting, or to comply with territorial regulatory obligations. Legally, it serves as a strategic tool to limit access locally without requiring the global removal of the content. Its use is becoming increasingly common in cases involving online defamation or reputational harm.

1.2 How is it used in digital litigation ?

Geo-blocking plays a critical role in resolving cross-border disputes involving unlawful online content. When content infringing protected interests under French law is hosted abroad, its removal can be legally or technically difficult. Geo-blocking allows access to be limited to users in France, thereby neutralizing the harmful effects within national borders. It offers a pragmatic alternative to full takedown, especially where international procedures are unrealistic. As a targeted risk mitigation measure, it is increasingly recognized by French courts as a legally sufficient response.

Geo-blocking recognized as a legal form of removal

2.1 The legal basis : Article 6-I-8 of the french LCEN

Article 6-I-8 of the French Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN) requires hosting providers to promptly remove any manifestly unlawful content once notified. Long interpreted as requiring complete takedown, this obligation is now evolving toward a territorial approach. The central question is : Can content that is only inaccessible from France be considered “removed” under French law ? In a cross-border digital environment, the affirmative response given by the Paris Court of Appeal in June 2025 marks a major shift. It confirms that geo-blocking, if effective, can fulfill the legal requirement of removal.

2.2 The june 13, 2025 ruling : a jurisprudential turning point

In a case between Eoservices and the site Signal-arnaques.com, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled on June 13, 2025, that geo-blocking access to content from France qualifies as removal, provided it renders the content inaccessible to French users. The defamatory comments, initially removed then reposted, had been blocked through IP filtering. The Court found that effective inaccessibility within France was sufficient to stop the infringement, in accordance with the LCEN. This ruling marks a significant evolution, establishing a territorial interpretation of the legal removal obligation.

Legal requirements for effective geo-blocking

3.1 The harm must be localized in France

To be legally valid, geo-blocking must address harm that is specifically suffered within French territory. The infringing content must either be in French, target a French audience, or affect a business operating in France. The damage must be objectively demonstrable, such as reputational harm, customer loss, or misdirected traffic. If the harm is not clearly localized, geo-blocking alone will be insufficient. The claimant must document the territorial impact, which is essential for the measure to be legally acceptable.

3.2 The blocking must be technically reliable and effective

French case law requires that geo-blocking genuinely prevents access from France using ordinary means. If content remains easily accessible via VPNs or standard browsers, the measure may be deemed ineffective. Courts expect proof of technical reliability, such as bailiff reports or expert audits using multiple French IPs. The IP filtering must be strict, active, and verifiable, or the measure will not meet the standard for terminating an infringement under French law.

Practical implications for victims of defamatory content

4.1 An Effective Defensive Strategy in a Cross-border Context

• Strategic solution: Geo-blocking provides a way to limit the impact of defamatory content hosted abroad.
• Proposed from the pre-litigation stage: It offers an alternative to avoid burdensome legal procedures while achieving tangible results on French soil.
• Less intrusive than global takedown: This measure is more flexible and less confrontational, facilitating negotiations with the content publisher.
• Proportionality and adaptation: It fits into a proportionality framework, addressing the realities of the modern digital environment.
• Legal effectiveness: When technically implemented, it meets the requirements of French courts.

4.2 The heightened evidentiary burden for the claimant

To justify geo-blocking, the claimant must present a structured and comprehensive body of evidence. This includes proving the content is unlawful, establishing clear harm within France, and demonstrating that the blocking measure is technically operative. Bailiff reports and technical audits are often necessary. These evidentiary demands underscore the importance of working with an experienced legal counsel in IP and digital law. Proper documentation is critical to preempt challenges and secure legal recognition of the measure.

Conclusion and outlook

The ruling of June 13, 2025, confirms that geo-blocking content from France may be legally treated as removal, provided it effectively prevents access from national territory. This solution reconciles the territorial limits of French law, freedom of expression abroad, and the need to effectively protect corporate reputation.
It offers a powerful strategic tool for brands facing harmful online content hosted outside France, in a context where digital sovereignty is increasingly essential.

The Dreyfus Law Firm supports businesses in protecting their interests in the face of legal challenges arising from an ever-evolving digital landscape.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Do courts always recognize geo-blocking as equivalent to removal?
No. Geo-blocking is accepted only if it is effective, targeted, and addresses harm localized in France. It is not a valid substitute in cases of criminal or global infringement.

2. How can I prove that geo-blocking is operational?
You must provide evidence such as bailiff reports or technical audits showing the content is no longer accessible from French IP addresses.

3. Can I still request global removal of content?
Yes. Geo-blocking is an alternative or complementary measure, but full removal remains relevant, especially if the content damages your brand internationally.

4. Does geo-blocking work on social media platforms?
Partially. Some platforms allow geo-filtering, but effectiveness depends on platform policies and the nature of the content. A formal or judicial request may be needed.

5. Is this solution suitable for trademark infringement cases?
Yes. If unauthorized use of a trademark is hosted outside France, geo-blocking can limit commercial harm on the French market while broader enforcement is pursued.

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed creative industries by enabling the autonomous generation of content, whether in design, writing, music, or even software development. This ability of AI to produce creative works raises complex intellectual property (IP) questions. To avoid conflicts, it is essential to contractually define the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in the creative process. This article examines the key clauses to include in contracts to secure the use of AI in these processes.

Why use AI in a creative process?

AI offers numerous advantages for creators. It enables the generation of innovative ideas by analyzing vast amounts of data, thus opening up new creative possibilities. Additionally, AI increases productivity by automating repetitive tasks, such as content generation, design adjustments, or music composition. This efficiency allows creatives to focus on more strategic aspects of their work. AI also offers the ability to personalize works based on individual client needs, which is particularly useful in sectors such as fashion, marketing, and entertainment.

Despite these benefits, the use of AI in creative processes must be accompanied by legal precautions to avoid potential risks.

Risks associated with the use of AI in a creative process

One of the main risks lies in ownership and authorship issues. Determining who holds the rights to an AI-generated work is not always clear. In many jurisdictions, intellectual property law has not been designed for AI-generated works, which can lead to conflicts over copyright ownership.

The risks associated with using AI include:

• Ownership and authorship issues

Determining who owns the rights to an AI-generated work is a grey area. The creator of the AI or the user of the AI may claim ownership, but IP laws in many jurisdictions were not designed with AI in mind.

• Data privacy issues

AI often requires large datasets to function effectively. Using data without proper consent or failing to anonymize personal data could lead to violations of privacy laws, such as GDPR in Europe.

• Bias and ethical considerations

AI systems can perpetuate biases present in training data. AI-generated works may inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or fail to meet ethical standards, potentially leading to public backlash or legal consequences.

• Infringement risks

AI-generated content may unintentionally infringe on existing works, resulting in legal conflicts over copyright or trademark violations.

Who owns the rights to AI-generated content?

In traditional creative processes, the creator of a work holds the associated rights. However, in the case of AI, the situation is more complex. The creator of the AI tool, the user, or even a third party may claim ownership of the generated work.

Generally, ownership rights should be clearly defined in a contract. It should specify whether the AI user, the AI creator, or another party owns the rights to the generated works. It is also important to indicate how these rights can be transferred or licensed to avoid ambiguity or legal conflicts.

The uncertainty surrounding the rights to AI-generated content was recently illustrated by a landmark case: Getty Images v. Stability AI, dated June 9, 2025. In this case, Getty Images one of the world’s leading providers of licensed photography filed lawsuits against Stability AI, the creator of the generative model Stable Diffusion, before both UK and US courts.

Getty accuses Stability AI of having used, without authorization, several million of its copyright-protected images to train its AI model. The large-scale use of these materials some of which were reportedly recognizable in the AI-generated outputs, with certain visuals even displaying the “Getty Images” watermark lies at the heart of a complex legal dispute, based notably on claims of copyright infringement, trademark violation, and breach of the contractual terms governing access to Getty’s databases.

However, at the beginning of the hearing on June 9, 2025, Getty Images partially revised its procedural strategy by dropping its claims of direct copyright infringement before the UK courts. The action now focuses on three grounds: trademark infringement, passing off, and secondary liability arising from the availability of a generative model trained on protected works.This strategic shift reflects the legal difficulty of qualifying AI-generated images as direct infringements when they do not identically reproduce the source images. Nevertheless, the judges established an innovative judicial framework by acknowledging that AI models even if they do not literally store the works used in their training may still fall within the scope of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) when they result in outputs that harm the rights holders.

Key clauses to secure the use of AI and avoid intellectual property conflicts

To secure the use of AI in a creative process, several clauses must be included in the contract to avoid legal conflicts concerning intellectual property.

4.1. Ownership and copyright

The contract must clearly specify who owns the copyright to AI-generated works. Additionally, it is important to determine under what conditions these rights are transferred, particularly after payment for the creative work. This clarity helps avoid disputes over ownership of creations.

4.2. Use of data and confidentiality

AI tools often require access to data for learning and functioning. The contract must specify the terms of data use, including consent, confidentiality, and personal data protection. It is crucial to comply with regulations such as GDPR to avoid legal risks related to data management.

4.3. Liability and infringement risks

The contract should also clearly define the responsibilities of the parties in the event of copyright infringement or violations. It should establish the conditions under which one party would be liable for damages or legal disputes related to AI-generated works. It is also important to specify guarantees regarding non-infringement to protect the interests of all parties involved.

4.4. Ethics and mitigating bias

To prevent the risk of bias or discrimination in AI-generated works, the contract may include a clause for regular audits of the AI’s output. It is crucial that the AI systems used adhere to ethical standards and avoid reinforcing stereotypes or prejudices, which could harm the company’s reputation and lead to legal consequences.

4.5. Confidentiality and non-disclosure

Given the sensitive nature of information related to AI and the generated works, it is essential to include confidentiality clauses in the contract. These clauses will protect sensitive information exchanged between the parties and ensure that no confidential data is disclosed without prior authorization.

Conclusion

Using AI in creative processes offers considerable opportunities but requires rigorous legal management to avoid intellectual property conflicts. By including necessary clauses regarding ownership, data use, liability, ethics, and confidentiality, parties can ensure that AI use is secure, transparent, and legally sound.

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 is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Who owns the rights to AI-generated content?
Ownership typically depends on the terms of the contract, which may assign rights to the AI user, the AI creator, or another party.

2. What are the risks associated with using AI in creative processes?
Risks include ownership conflicts, data privacy violations, ethical concerns regarding AI biases, and potential IP infringements.

3. How can I avoid property conflicts related to AI?
It is important to clearly define ownership of copyright in the contract and ensure that the AI does not generate content that infringes existing rights.

4. What are the legal implications of using AI in creative processes?
Legal implications mainly concern intellectual property, data protection, liability for AI-generated results, and ethical considerations.

5. Can AI create works protected by copyright?
In many jurisdictions, works created by AI are not automatically protected by copyright unless a human author is involved in the creative process.

Introduction

In a rapidly evolving agricultural landscape, the creation of new plant varieties serves as a strategic tool for food sovereignty, agronomic innovation, and environmental sustainability. These varieties, the result of complex and lengthy scientific work, require tailored legal protection to secure breeders’ investments and ensure the traceability of seeds used in markets. The Plant Breeder’s Rights (PBR), is a form of exclusive right akin to a patent but specifically designed for plant innovations. It is governed by a normative framework harmonized at national, European, and international levels in France, by the Intellectual Property Code, in the European Union, by Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94 and internationally, by the UPOV Convention.

Criteria for obtaining a plant breeder’s right

1.1 Evaluating a plant variety: the four technical criteria
To obtain a COV, a variety must meet four key criteria: novelty, distinctness, uniformity, and stability.

• Novelty: The variety must not have been placed on the market or transferred to third parties within a specified time period. In France and the European Union, this period is one year, but it may extend to four years for non-EU countries, and even six years for certain perennial species like trees and vines.
• Distinctness: The variety must be distinct from any known variety at the time of the application. This distinction is based on one or more significant characteristics, such as morphological, phenological, or performance traits.
• Uniformity: The variety must be uniform in its essential characteristics, meaning its properties must be stable and reproduced consistently across generations.
• Stability: The variety must be stable, meaning its characteristics remain constant through multiple breeding cycles.
  All these criteria are validated through DHS tests for Distinctness, Homogeneity, and Stability, carried out by accredited organizations such as GEVES in France.

1.2 A compliant variety name

The deposited variety must bear a name that adheres to the standards set by UPOV. This name must be unique, neutral, and not misleading regarding the origin, nature, or quality of the variety. For instance, it should not contain laudatory terms, trademarks, or unsubstantiated geographical indications. INOV in France or CPVO at the European level may reject a non-compliant name and require the applicant to propose a new one.

1.3 Exceptions and exclusions

Certain varieties are excluded from protection. For example, farmer varieties or those already marketed before the filing are not eligible. Similarly, varieties without genetic traceability or those based on traditional knowledge cannot be protected. Moreover, varieties whose characteristics are already known or those not meeting technical criteria are also excluded from the procedure.

Filing procedure and costs for a plant breeder’s right

2.1 Strategic choice of protection mode: INOV, CPVO, or UPOV

The choice of protection system depends on the applicant’s business strategy. They may opt for national protection via INOV in France, which is ideal for local projects, or for community protection via CPVO, which is valid in all EU member states. Alternatively, an international system via UPOV allows the variety to be protected in several signatory countries, which is suitable for businesses aiming for global expansion.

2.2 Filing steps and technical examinations

The filing begins with submitting a complete dossier that includes a detailed description of the variety, its name, genealogy, and biological samples. Then, DHS tests are conducted to assess the distinctness, homogeneity, and stability of the variety. If the criteria are met, the application is published, and an opposition period is set. After this period ends, and provided no opposition has been raised, the certificate is issued and published in the official Bulletin.

2.3 Fees, timelines, and duration of protection

The filing fees for a COV generally range between 3,000 and 6,000 euros, depending on the species and the required tests. Protection typically lasts for 25 years and can be extended to 30 years for certain perennial species like vines, fruit trees, and potatoes. Processing a request can take between one and four years, depending on the crop and the chosen procedure.

Commercial valorization of a plant variety

3.1 Exploitation methods and seed licensing

The COV grants the holder exclusive exploitation rights over the variety. The holder can choose to produce and sell the seeds directly or license them to third parties. These licenses may be exclusive or non-exclusive, and may include contractual conditions regarding duration, territory, and production volumes.

3.2 Structuring partnerships and royalty mechanisms

Commercial valorization often involves partnerships with producers or agri-food industries, enabling investment pooling and accelerating commercialization. Royalties are typically based on the volume of seeds marketed and serve as a key economic lever to ensure the profitability of breeding efforts.

3.3 Scientific promotion through research projects and niche markets

Protected varieties can also be utilized in agronomic research programs to develop traits such as disease resistance or climate adaptability. This not only enhances their visibility but also promotes their adoption in specialized markets and for export.

Maintaining competitiveness of protected varieties

4.1 Progressive adaptation to climate change and agricultural demands

Varieties must now meet resilience criteria against climate change, while also meeting the demands of sustainable agriculture. Legal protection must be coupled with continuous agronomic evaluation to maintain the competitiveness of varieties in line with evolving agricultural needs.

4.2 Genetic innovation through digital tools and selective breeding regulations

Advances in genetics and the use of digital tools help accelerate the selection process for varieties. The UPOV exemption for selection also allows the use of protected varieties to create new, innovative varieties.

4.3 Developing seed sovereignty for responsible agriculture

The COV also plays a role in seed sovereignty policy by allowing states to reduce their dependency on foreign seeds and promoting locally adapted production that meets specific agricultural and environmental challenges.

Actions and remedies in case of infringement of protected plant breeder’s rights

5.1 Types of infringements

Unauthorized exploitation of a protected variety constitutes infringement. This includes the unlawful reproduction of seeds, unlicensed commercialization, and fraudulent use in a breeding program.

5.2 Civil, criminal, and customs sanctions

Article L623-25 and seq. of the Intellectual Property Code provides for civil sanctions, such as damage compensation, confiscation of infringing batches, and exploitation bans. In case of infringement, the holder can also seek criminal sanctions, with penalties including up to three years in prison and a fine of 300,000 euros, which may be doubled in case of repeat offenses. Customs measures can also be taken to detain illegally imported seeds.
A recent case illustrates these sanctions: in an Italian case, R.G.Dib. 1220/2024 the Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore sentenced the defendant to six months in prison and a 1,000-euro fine for infringing a protected plant variety, highlighting the severe sanctions against intellectual property violations related to plant breeding rights.

5.3 Enforcement methods for holders

To combat infringement, holders have several enforcement options, such as filing a lawsuit for infringement before the competent court, carrying out a seizure order with judicial authorization, or notifying customs services to activate border control measures.

Conclusion

The Plant Breeder’s Right is a crucial tool for the protection of innovations in the plant sector, ensuring legal security and enhancing the competitiveness of market players. To be fully effective, it is essential to understand the applicable legal framework and implement tailored strategies for valorization and defense against infringement.

Dreyfus & Associés supports plant industry stakeholders in protecting, valorizing, and defending their plant breeding rights in France, Europe, and internationally. Our expertise covers the entire lifecycle of the COV, from filing strategy to infringement actions.

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

FAQ

1. Duration of a plant breeder’s right
The certificate is valid for 25 years, or 30 years for certain species (vines, fruit trees, potatoes), with annual fees to maintain protection.

2. Can a patent and a plant breeder’s right be combined?
No, a single variety cannot be protected by both a patent and a COV, but a process for creating a variety can be patented independently of the COV.

3. Technical criteria for obtaining a COV
The variety must be novel, distinct, uniform, and stable, assessed through DHS tests conducted by accredited bodies like GEVES.

4. Reselling seeds from a protected variety
Reselling is strictly regulated. Only license holders or certain farmers can use farm-saved seeds; otherwise, it constitutes infringement.

5. What to do in case of infringement?
The holder can file an infringement action, request a seizure order, seek an injunction, or activate customs detention. Civil, criminal, and customs sanctions may apply.