News

Introduction

The creation of the “digital safe” label by the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) formed part of a broader structural evolution of digital law, driven by the rise of dematerialization and the growing need for data security. As companies increasingly outsourced the storage of their strategic information, the reliability of storage systems became a central legal issue, both in terms of personal data protection and electronic evidence.

However, the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018 significantly reshaped the regulatory tools available to supervisory authorities. In this context, the CNIL has gradually abandoned its system of national labels in favour of European certification mechanisms, notably those provided for under Article 42 of the GDPR.

As a result, the “digital safe” label no longer constitutes an operational mechanism. It nevertheless remains a key reference for understanding the legal and technical requirements applicable to secure digital storage services.

Definition of a digital safe under CNIL guidelines

In its reference framework dated January 23, 2014, the CNIL defined the digital safe as a secure online storage space enabling the preservation of electronic documents in various formats.

Such systems rely on an architecture ensuring that both data and associated metadata remain accessible exclusively to the data subject or to authorised individuals. This strict access control is a fundamental component of personal data protection.

From a legal standpoint, a digital safe is based on three core guarantees :

• confidentiality,
• integrity,
• availability of the stored information.

It is therefore not merely a technical tool, but a mechanism designed to ensure both data security and the evidentiary value of electronic documents.

The rationale behind the CNIL digital safe label

The CNIL digital safe label was introduced in response to the increasing need to structure a market driven by the electronic storage of high-value legal documents, such as contracts, employment data, and accounting records. Based on the French Data Protection Act of January 6, 1978, this mechanism enabled the CNIL to certify that digital services complied with high data protection standards.

The label pursued a dual objective :

• On the one hand, it provided users with a trusted benchmark to identify secure solutions.
• On the other hand, it contributed to structuring the market by establishing objective criteria for reliability and security.

However, this national approach was fundamentally challenged by the European harmonisation introduced by the GDPR. The Regulation now promotes certification mechanisms at EU level, aimed at ensuring consistency across the digital market within the Union. Consequently, the CNIL no longer issues labels under the French Data Protection Act.

Conditions for obtaining the label

The CNIL framework was based on twenty-two cumulative requirements covering the entire data lifecycle. In particular, it required that the provider be responsible both for the technical operation of the service and its provision to end users, thereby ensuring full accountability for all data processing activities.

The requirements addressed access security, user rights management, the robustness of cryptographic mechanisms, and the conditions governing data storage and retrieval. Particular emphasis was also placed on traceability and transparency towards users.

The system further required continuous compliance, based on regular audits and proactive risk management. Although no longer in force, these requirements remain highly relevant under the GDPR, particularly with regard to data security obligations.

The specific regime for sensitive data

The CNIL framework established a clear distinction between ordinary data and sensitive data, in particular health data, which were subject to enhanced safeguards. Due to their nature, such data could not be stored in a digital safe without complying with specific requirements, notably the use of an authorised hosting provider, as provided for under Article L1111-8 of the French Public Health Code.

This approach anticipated the GDPR’s risk-based framework, which imposes heightened protection for sensitive data and requires additional safeguards in terms of security and processing. It reflects a hierarchy of risks that now lies at the core of European data protection law.

Impact on compliance and electronic evidence

Although predating the GDPR, the CNIL framework anticipated many of its core principles, particularly in relation to data security and risk management. However, in the absence of a maintained labelling system, the use of a digital safe can no longer be presented as formal proof of compliance.

It nevertheless constitutes a relevant indicator of the implementation of appropriate technical and organisational measures within the meaning of Article 32 GDPR, thereby contributing to the demonstration of the accountability principle. The role of the framework has therefore shifted : from a certification tool, it has become a technical and evidentiary benchmark that may be relied upon in the context of audits or litigation.

In addition, the requirements associated with digital safes should be considered in light of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of July 23, 2014 (eIDAS), which governs trust services and aims to ensure the legal validity of electronic documents across the European Union. Although it does not directly regulate storage systems, it enhances the reliability of stored documents by ensuring their integrity, traceability and enforceability, notably through mechanisms such as electronic signatures and time-stamping.

Conclusion

While the creation of the CNIL digital safe label marked a significant step in the legal framework governing digital storage services, its discontinuation in favour of European certification mechanisms reflects a broader evolution in regulatory approaches.

This development illustrates the transition from a national labelling system to a European framework based on accountability and the ongoing demonstration of compliance, thereby confirming the central role of the accountability principle in the regulation of the digital economy.

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

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. What is the difference between a digital safe and a standard cloud storage solution ?
A digital safe differs from a cloud service due to its legal framework and enhanced safeguards. It incorporates mechanisms ensuring traceability, document integrity, and long-term preservation under conditions that guarantee evidentiary value. Although no longer based on a formal CNIL label, these requirements remain consistent with the security standards expected under the GDPR and the eIDAS Regulation.

2. Does the CNIL digital safe label still exist ?
The CNIL’s labelling system, as it existed prior to the GDPR, has been discontinued. It has been replaced by European certification mechanisms under Article 42 GDPR. However, no equivalent certification specifically dedicated to digital safes currently exists.

3. Are there equivalent requirements today ?
The requirements underlying the former CNIL label continue to exist under the GDPR, particularly the obligation to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures (Article 32), as well as through sectoral standards and best practices. The 2014 CNIL framework remains a useful reference in this respect.

4. How does a digital safe contribute to GDPR compliance ?
The use of a digital safe aligned with high security standards demonstrates the implementation of appropriate safeguards. While it no longer constitutes formal certification, it remains a relevant evidentiary element in demonstrating compliance with the accountability principle.

5. Are documents stored in a digital safe enforceable abroad ?
Yes, provided that their integrity, traceability and reliability can be demonstrated. The use of a secure digital safe may strengthen evidentiary value, particularly within the EU framework under eIDAS, although recognition ultimately depends on applicable procedural rules in each jurisdiction.

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 “Made in France” label has become a major strategic lever for companies seeking to enhance their trademark image. At a time when consumers prioritize traceability, quality, and economic sovereignty, product origin has become a decisive purchasing criterion.

However, behind this marketing argument lies a complex legal framework, often misunderstood, exposing companies to significant risks in cases of misuse.

We analyze here the applicable rules, conditions of use, legal risks, and best practices to secure the use of this claim.

Understanding the legal definition of “Made in France”

An undefined notion governed by customs law

Contrary to common belief, the term “Made in France” is not defined by a single legal provision. It is based on the rules of non-preferential origin set out in the European Union Customs Code.

To use this designation, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the product meets one of the following criteria:

• Wholly obtained in France: all components originate from France and all stages of production take place there;
• Substantial transformation in France: where the product is not entirely French, it must undergo its last significant transformation in France, resulting either in a new product or a key manufacturing stage giving it its essential characteristics.

The concept of substantial transformation is assessed through several alternative criteria:

• Change in tariff classification: the finished product falls under a different customs code than its components;
• Specific processing: key operations (e.g., weaving or full garment manufacturing in textiles) confer French origin;
• Maximum threshold of foreign components: limits on non-French inputs in the final product;
• Minimum value added in France: a significant portion of the ex-works price is generated domestically (e.g., 45% for certain industrial goods).

A key distinction: food products vs manufactured goods

The legal framework varies significantly depending on the type of product.

For food products, certain origin labeling requirements apply within a strict European regulatory framework designed to ensure traceability and food safety. This serves a primary objective of consumer protection, particularly in matters of public health and fair information.

By contrast, for manufactured goods, the use of the “Made in France” label remains optional. It falls within the principle of freedom of trade, subject to consumer law rules on misleading commercial practices. In the absence of full EU harmonization, companies retain flexibility but also bear increased responsibility regarding the accuracy of origin claims.

What legal obligations apply to products?

Compliance with consumer law: a duty of fairness

The use of “Made in France” constitutes a commercial claim and is therefore subject to provisions of the French Consumer Code on misleading practices.

A company incurs liability where:

• the information is inaccurate or ambiguous;
• it is likely to mislead consumers;
• it creates an unjustified competitive advantage.

In this context, expressions such as “designed in France,” “French design,” “French craftsmanship,” or “French trademark” must be used with caution. These claims may be considered misleading if they suggest French manufacturing when this is not the case. Clear and precise communication is therefore essential.

DGCCRF controls and risks of misuse

The DGCCRF plays a central role in verifying the accuracy of origin claims. It has extensive powers enabling it to request supporting documentation, carry out on-site inspections, and sanction any non-compliant practices.

In the event of irregularities, companies may be subject to administrative fines, withdrawal of products from the market, as well as significant reputational damage.

More broadly, the misuse of the “Made in France” claim constitutes a major legal risk. It may result in:

• proceedings for misleading commercial practices;
• civil liability for unfair competition or competitive harm;
• criminal sanctions in the most serious cases.

The consequences are not limited to legal exposure. From a strategic perspective, such misuse may lead to:

• A loss of consumer trust,
• Negative media coverage (bad buzz),
• A lasting deterioration of trademark image.

How to prove the French origin of a product?

The burden of proof lies with the company

Any company using the “Made in France” claim must be able to objectively substantiate it. Evidence may include:

• Technical manufacturing documentation;
• Supplier invoices;
• Component traceability;
• Detailed industrial processes.

It is essential to maintain a clear, structured, and accessible file in case of inspection. This documentation enhances transparency and strengthens trademark credibility.

The value of a Binding Origin Information (RCO)

To secure their position, companies may request a Binding Origin Information (BOI) decision from customs authorities. This mechanism provides an official and legally binding determination of a product’s origin under non-preferential rules.

The BOI offers several advantages:

• it provides strong evidentiary value;
• it ensures legal certainty regarding the use of the claim;
• it helps mitigate litigation risks.

In practice, obtaining a BOI is part of a proactive compliance strategy, particularly relevant for complex or international supply chains.

Conclusion

The “Made in France” label represents a significant competitive advantage, provided its legal implications are fully understood. Its use requires rigor, transparency, and proactive risk management under both customs and consumer law.

A compliant approach relies on precise supply chain analysis, robust documentation, and clear communication to avoid misleading practices and preserve the long-term credibility of both the company and its trademark.

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. Is “Made in France” mandatory?
No, except for certain food products. For manufactured goods, it is optional.

2. What is a substantial transformation?
It is the final stage of production that significantly alters the product.

3. Can a product be “Made in France” if raw materials are imported?
Yes, if the main transformation occurs in France.

4. Is there an official label?
There are several private or semi-public labels (e.g., Origine France Garantie).

5. What is the difference between “Made in France” and “Origine France Garantie”?
The latter is based on stricter specifications and certification.

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

Introduction

The dispute between Éditions P. Amaury, holders of the iconic “BALLON D’OR” trademark, and the British company Golden Balls Ltd, applicant for the “GOLDEN BALLS” trademark, sharply illustrates the complexity of assessing the likelihood of confusion within the European Union. By confronting two signs that differ linguistically yet are conceptually close, the various rulings highlight the limits of protection afforded to a well-known trademark when its intrinsic distinctiveness remains weak.

The origin of the dispute: confusion or linguistic coincidence?

The dispute began when Golden Balls Ltd sought to register the trademark “GOLDEN BALLS” as an EU trademark for goods and services partially identical or similar to those covered by the earlier trademark “BALLON D’OR”.

Les Éditions P. Amaury opposed the registration on two main grounds:

• Likelihood of confusion, as provided under Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR) of 14 June 2017.
• Detriment to fame, as provided under Article 8(5) of the same Regulation.

The General Court’s 2013 rulings: dissimilarity prevails

In its initial judgments in 2013 (T-437/11 and T-448/11), ), the EU General Court ruled in favour of Golden Balls Ltd, an outcome that initially surprised many intellectual property specialists. The judges found that the signs were visually and phonetically dissimilar. The signs differed notably in their language. Even if a conceptual similarity could be identified, it was deemed insufficient to create a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average EU consumer. Consequently, the application for “GOLDEN BALLS” was provisionally accepted.

The ECJ’s historic correction in 2014: fame must be assessed

The French publisher appealed. In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) handed down a landmark decision, overturning the 2013 judgments of the General Court. The ECJ held that the General Court had failed to adequately examine the ground based on damage to fame, thereby committing an error of law.

The ECJ further clarified that even a low degree of similarity between two signs may be sufficient to establish a link in the mind of the relevant public, provided that the earlier trademark enjoys a high degree of distinctiveness and fame.

Following this decision, the case underwent a long and complex procedural journey, marked by several intermediate decisions issued by the EUIPO Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal, including a   decision in 2016 (R 1962/2015‑1), before being referred back to the General Court.

In 2018, the General Court handed down its judgment in a confirming the fame of the “BALLON D’OR” trademark while adopting a nuanced stance on whether a sufficiently close link existed between the signs to justify a finding of unfair advantage.

Specifically, the Court clarified that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 protects a well-known trademark only if the public establishes a link between the signs and if the use of the contested sign takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the fame of the earlier trademark. The “GOLDEN BALLS” trademark thus remained valid for classes of goods and services considered too far removed from the sporting field to give rise to unfair advantage.

The unexpected turning point: partial revocation of the “BALLON D’OR” trademark for lack of genuine use

A few years later, Golden Balls Ltd initiated revocation proceedings against the BALLON D’OR mark for non-use, under  Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR.

In its judgment of July 2022 ((T-478/21), the General Court issued a nuanced decision redefining the scope of protection of the “BALLON D’OR” trademark.

While the Court accepted that the “organisation of sporting competitions and award ceremonies” constituted sufficient proof of use for the broader category of “entertainment services”, it upheld partial revocation for numerous other goods and services (such as printed matter, films, and telecommunications).

The evidence provided failed to demonstrate use of the trademark for each specific subcategory claimed during the preceding five-year period.

To learn more about assessing genuine use of a trademark for all classes of goods and services for which it is registered, please see our previously published article.

Proving genuine use of a trademark: evidence and best practices

To establish genuine use of a trademark, various forms of evidence may be submitted, such as:

• Invoices, purchase orders, or delivery note;
• Catalogues, brochures, and packaging displaying the trademark;
• Print and digital advertisements;
• Dated and archived website screenshots;
• Market studies and opinion surveys demonstrating the fame
• Contracts or licence agreements with third parties using the trademark.

Each item must be dated and correspond precisely to the goods and services covered by the registration. Use limited to only part of the designated goods or services may result in partial revocation.

Moreover, use must be uninterrupted or duly justified if interrupted. Sporadic or symbolic use is insufficient; the evidence must show an actual commercial presence, not merely internal use.

Conclusion

The Ballon d’Or vs Golden Ball dispute serves as a crucial reminder for trademark owners: fame is a powerful asset in trademark litigation, but it does not exempt the owner from the fundamental duty to prove genuine use for all registered goods and services.

A lack of proof, even for seemingly secondary classes, may result in partial revocation, thereby reducing the overall scope of trademark protection.

It is therefore recommended to engage an IP law firm or trademark attorney both upstream, to craft a precise and relevant specification of goods and services aligned with actual or intended use, and downstream, to evaluate risk, identify relevant evidence, and implement a robust use strategy that preserves the integrity of trademark rights.

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.What is revocation for non-use of a trademark?
Under Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, a registered trademark may be revoked if its proprietor fails to prove genuine use of the trademark for the goods and services claimed during an uninterrupted period of five years. Revocation may be partial if use is shown only for certain goods or services.

2.What is the key takeaway from the Ballon d’Or / Golden Balls decision for owners of well-known trademarks?
The main lesson is to meticulously document genuine use for each product and service designated in the registration, particularly during the first five years following registration, to avoid subsequent revocation.

Can use in a single EU Member State preserve an EU trademark?
Ye, if that use produces commercial effects within the internal market, taking into account the economic context

4.What happens after revocation for non-use?
Once revoked, the trademark is deemed never to have produced effects from the date set by the decision. It retroactively loses protection for the relevant goods and services. The proprietor can no longer rely on exclusive rights, oppose similar trademarks, or prevent third-party use. The trademark may then be re-registered by another party, provided this does not create a likelihood of confusion with still-valid prior rights.

5.What practical steps help prevent revocation and preserve a trademark’s evidentiary strength?
It is essential to:

• actively monitor the trademark’s use and archive evidence (invoices, ads, publications, screenshots, etc.);
• periodically renew communication campaigns linked to the trademark;
• audit the portfolio to detect inactive registrations;
• restrict filings to goods and services genuinely used, thus avoiding vulnerabilities in non-use challenges.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not designed to apply to specific situations, nor does it constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Since the launch of ICANN’s New gTLD Program in 2012, the domain name landscape has undergone a profound transformation. This initiative has enabled the introduction of hundreds of new thematic, geographic, and sector-specific extensions (.shop, .paris, .app, .law, etc.), offering businesses enhanced opportunities for online positioning. However, this diversification has also brought increased risks of cybersquatting and brand infringement, compelling rights holders to adapt their protection strategies.

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) remains the central, globally recognised mechanism for resolving disputes over domain names registered in bad faith, whether they involve legacy extensions (.com, .net) or the new gTLDs. Today, the UDRP must address a rising volume of disputes and increasingly varied contexts, requiring more tailored approaches.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of developments since the landmark Canyon.bike case in 2014, examines recent trends in UDRP disputes involving new extensions, and outlines strategic recommendations for trademark owners in 2025.

Context and scope of the UDRP for new extensions

Adopted by ICANN in 1999, the UDRP applies to all generic top-level domains (gTLDs), whether they are legacy extensions or part of the New gTLD Program. It allows a trademark owner to obtain the transfer or cancellation of a domain name where three cumulative conditions are met:

• The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark;
• The domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
• The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

This framework applies to all new extensions, thereby ensuring legal consistency on a global scale.

Evolution of new extensions since 2014

Growth and diversification of gTLDs

Since 2014, the number of available extensions has increased dramatically, now exceeding 1,200 delegated gTLDs. These fall into several categories:

• Thematic extensions (.shop, .tech, .app) targeting specific industries;
• Geographic extensions (.paris, .london) highlighting local presence;
• Community or specialised extensions (.law, .bank), often subject to strict eligibility requirements.

Trends and most-used extensions

Some new extensions have quickly gained prominence due to their universal appeal and marketing potential, such as .xyz, .online, and .shop. These have also become prime targets for cybersquatters, necessitating enhanced monitoring measures.

Case law and landmark decisions

The Canyon.bike case (2014)

This decision remains the first known UDRP case involving a new extension. It confirmed that the extension itself does not influence the assessment of similarity between the trademark and the domain name: the decisive element is the string to the left of the dot.

Recent jurisprudential developments

Since 2014, numerous cases have involved new extensions. UDRP panels apply the same criteria to recent gTLDs as to legacy ones, while considering the specific context of certain extensions, particularly when the extension reinforces the association with the trademark’s industry sector. Decisions also show heightened vigilance toward multiple registrations across different extensions targeting the same brand.

Issues and strategies for trademark owners

Monitoring and anticipation

The proliferation of extensions makes it essential to implement automated and targeted monitoring of trademark terms across all relevant extensions.

Selecting the appropriate procedures

Depending on the case, several options are available:

• UDRP: to obtain permanent transfer or cancellation;
• URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension): for clear-cut cases of cybersquatting, enabling swift suspension;
• Local procedures: such as Syreli for .fr, when the domain name falls under a ccTLD.

Building strong cases

The success of a complaint hinges on demonstrating all three UDRP criteria with clear, tangible evidence of the trademark’s reputation and the respondent’s bad faith (e.g., multiple registrations, deceptive use, redirection to competitor websites).

Conclusion

New extensions offer businesses unprecedented opportunities for online visibility but also open new fronts for rights infringements. The UDRP remains as relevant and effective as ever, provided it is integrated into a comprehensive strategy combining monitoring, rapid action, and careful selection of dispute resolution procedures.

Dreyfus & Associés assists clients in protecting and defending their rights across all extensions, in partnership with a global network of intellectual property law specialists.

Nathalie Dreyfus, with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

What is a new gTLD?

A generic top-level domain introduced after 2012, such as .shop, .paris, or .app, expanding the range of available domain name choices.

Does the UDRP apply to new extensions?

Yes. It covers all ICANN-approved gTLDs, whether legacy or new.

Should all extensions be monitored?

It is advisable to target the extensions most relevant to your sector and market to optimise monitoring costs and effectiveness.

Can multiple domain names be challenged in a single procedure?

Yes, if they are registered to the same holder and circumstances justify joint action.

How can a respondent’s bad faith be proven?

Through evidence such as the trademark’s reputation, redirection to a competitor’s site, or offering the domain for sale at an excessive price.

Introduction

Long viewed as a safeguard against economic espionage and unfair competition, trade secrets now occupy a more complex place within European Union law. By harmonising their protection, the EU has sought to secure undertakings’ know-how, innovation and strategic commercial information. Yet this protection can no longer be considered in isolation. It must now be reconciled with European requirements relating to transparency, the regulated circulation of data, innovation and the protection of the public interest.

From the Europe 2020 strategy to the trade secrets directive: the construction of a common framework

Directive (EU) 2016/943 of June 8, 2016 was adopted in response to the need to harmonise a previously fragmented system of trade secret protection across the European Union. Prior to its adoption, confidential information was protected in varying ways across Member States, either through specific rules or under general principles of civil liability, unfair competition, employment law, criminal law or contract law.

The Directive now establishes a common definition of a trade secret. Information may be protected where it :

• is secret;
• has commercial value and;
• its lawful holder has taken reasonable steps to keep it confidential.

This definition requires undertakings to adopt an active approach: it is not sufficient merely to describe information as confidential; the undertaking must also be able to demonstrate its strategic value and the measures implemented to protect it.

The Directive also harmonises unlawful conduct, such as the unauthorised acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret, as well as the principal civil remedies available to bring the infringement to an end and obtain compensation. It nevertheless establishes only a minimum framework: procedural rules, the taking of evidence and the assessment of damages may still vary from one Member State to another.

How has France transposed the European trade secrets regime?

Law No. 2018-670 of July 30, 2018 transposed the Directive into French law by introducing, into the French Commercial Code, a specific regime for the protection of trade secrets.

Article L.151-1 of the French Commercial Code incorporates the three European criteria listed above. Protection is therefore not automatic: the undertaking must be able to demonstrate that it has identified its sensitive information and implemented concrete measures to preserve its confidentiality.

This regime is, however, balanced by a number of exceptions. Trade secrets may not, in particular, be invoked to obstruct freedom of expression and information, the good-faith disclosure of unlawful conduct, or the protection of a legitimate interest recognised by law. The regime therefore protects the strategic information of undertakings without establishing a general right to opacity.

Protection now interacting with new European regimes on transparency and access to data

Since the transposition of the Directive, the legal foundation has remained unchanged. However, trade secrets now operate within a broader regulatory environment, marked by the development of European instruments relating to whistleblower protection, data governance, access to data and artificial intelligence.

• The 2019 whistleblower directive: trade secrets must not override the public interest

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of October 23, 2019, does not call into question the protection of trade secrets. Rather, it strengthens the protection of persons who report certain breaches of Union law. It thus confirms that business confidentiality must be reconciled with the protection of the public interest.

This Directive also helps to clarify the limits of the enforceability of trade secrets where disclosure takes place within a protected whistleblowing framework. For undertakings, this interaction requires more sophisticated governance. It is no longer sufficient to reinforce confidentiality clauses. Undertakings must also implement reporting channels, reliable internal procedures and a compliance culture capable of distinguishing the legitimate protection of secrecy from the abusive use of confidentiality.

• The Data Governance Act: towards a regulated circulation of data

Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of May 30, 2022 on European data governance, known as the Data Governance Act, introduced a new logic: encouraging the sharing and reuse of certain categories of data, while preserving trade secrets, intellectual property rights and requirements relating to the protection of personal data.

In this approach trade secrets are no longer analysed solely as a barrier to access but they become an element to be integrated into mechanisms of governance, control and secure sharing. The European Union does not seek to oppose confidentiality and innovation; it rather seeks to construct a model in which data may circulate without destroying the value of protected information.

• The Data Act: a new point of tension between access to data and trade secrets

Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 of December 13, 2023, also known as the Data Act, represents an even clearer development. It organises, in certain circumstances, access to data generated by the use of connected products and related services, including protected data held by public sector entities, while providing safeguards where such data contain trade secrets.

Undertakings must therefore identify sensitive information in advance, provide for confidentiality undertakings and document the risks associated with its disclosure.

• The AI Act: transparency in artificial intelligence and the protection of confidential information

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of June 13, 2024, on artificial intelligence, known as the AI Act, adds a further dimension. For certain artificial intelligence systems, it imposes obligations relating to documentation, transparency, risk management and compliance. These obligations may entail the production or communication of sensitive technical information potentially covered by trade secret protection.

The AI Act does not remove the protection afforded to trade secrets. It rather requires that such protection be reconciled with the requirements of transparency, security, documentation and oversight applicable to certain artificial intelligence systems.

Conclusion

The European Union has established a common foundation for the protection of trade secrets, without achieving full uniformity, as Member States retain a certain margin of discretion. Today, this protection has not been replaced, but must be articulated with new European instruments relating to whistleblowing, data governance, access to data and artificial intelligence.

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

Dreyfus law firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. What is the difference between a trade secret and a confidentiality clause?

A confidentiality clause is a contractual instrument. It requires a person or undertaking not to disclose certain information. A trade secret, by contrast, is a statutory protection regime. The two may complement each other: a properly drafted confidentiality clause may help demonstrate that an undertaking has taken reasonable steps to protect the information.

2. Is information simply marked “confidential” automatically protected?

No. Marking information as “confidential” is useful, but it is not sufficient in itself. The undertaking must be able to demonstrate that the three criteria for trade secret protection are met: the secrecy of the information, its commercial value and the existence of reasonable protective measures. Such marking is therefore an indication, not an absolute guarantee.

3. Can an idea be protected as a trade secret?

Yes, but only if it is sufficiently concrete and confidential. A general or abstract idea is difficult to protect. By contrast, a structured method, a technically documented concept, a development plan or a precise commercial strategy may fall within the scope of trade secret protection if the legal conditions are satisfied.

4. Does trade secret protection replace patent protection?

No. A patent grants an exclusive right in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention. Trade secret protection, by contrast, is based on confidentiality. An undertaking may choose not to patent an innovation in order to avoid disclosing it, but it must then be capable of effectively maintaining secrecy. The choice between patent protection and trade secret protection therefore depends on the nature of the innovation, its expected lifespan, the risk of copying and the undertaking’s commercial strategy.

5. Can trade secrets be enforced against a former commercial partner?

Yes, where that partner obtained the information within a limited contractual framework and subsequently uses it without authorisation. This is why partnership, service, distribution, research and negotiation agreements must precisely define the information transmitted, the authorised use of that information, the duration of protection and the consequences of any disclosure.

The purpose of this publication is to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to particular situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Product placement is a widely used tool for companies seeking to enhance their visibility, particularly in a context of saturation of traditional advertising formats. Its effectiveness lies in its seamless integration into audiovisual and digital content; however, such integration is not legally neutral.

At the intersection of consumer law, European law and intellectual property law, its implementation requires careful consideration in order to secure operations and safeguard the company’s interests.

Product placement: a recognised and regulated marketing technique

Product placement is defined as the inclusion, in return for consideration, of a product, service or trademark within an audiovisual programme. This definition, derived from Article 1 of Directive 2007/65/EC of December 11, 2007 concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, legally recognises this practice as a form of commercial communication.

Prior to this recognition, European law was grounded in a principle prohibiting product placement, subject to limited exceptions, notably in cinematographic works. This approach reflected a desire to preserve the separation between editorial content and advertising.

The 2007 Directive marked a turning point by authorising product placement while subjecting it to regulation. As a result, it can no longer be regarded as a mere narrative element; rather, it constitutes a regulated promotional practice, subject to a fundamental requirement: ensuring that the commercial nature of the content is identifiable by the audience.

What legal framework governs product placement in France?

The current legal framework for product placement in France originates in particular from the transposition of Directive 2007/65/EC (mentioned above), implemented by French law No. 2009-258 of March 5, 2009. This law introduced product placement into French law while setting clear limits on its use. This transposition does not amount to a liberalization, but rather to a regulated authorization. The legislator sought to reconcile the economic needs of the audiovisual sector with consumer protection, notably by imposing strict transparency requirements.

The implementation of this framework was further clarified by Decision No. 2010-4 of February 16, 2010 adopted by the CSA (now ARCOM), which governs practices in concrete terms by requiring that product placement be clearly disclosed to the public. This obligation constitutes the cornerstone of the regulatory regime.

This regime forms part of a broader European framework established by Directive 2010/13/EU of March 10, 2010 on audiovisual media services. This directive harmonizes the rules applicable within the European Union and enshrines the principle of regulated authorization for product placement, subject to several requirements:

• clear identification of product placement,
• prohibition of undue influence on editorial content,
• absence of direct encouragement to purchase,
• exclusion of certain sensitive products or programmes, particularly those aimed at children or news programmes.

It thus constitutes the harmonized foundation at the European Union level, on which French law is based, and which has been transposed through the adaptation of legislative and regulatory provisions.

Today, Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of November 14, 2018 has extended these principles to new digital environments and distribution platforms.

Influencers and the regulation of product placement on social media

The rise of social media has profoundly transformed the modalities of product placement. Content disseminated on digital platforms such as YouTube, Instagram or TikTok now falls within the scope of the French Consumer Code, in particular Articles L.121-2 and L.121-3 relating to misleading commercial practices.

The principle is clear: any commercial communication must be identifiable as such. The absence of an explicit disclosure of a commercial partnership constitutes a concealment of commercial intent, likely to give rise to liability.

The French Directorate general for competition policy, consumer affairs and fraud control (DGCCRF) exercises increased scrutiny over these practices and regularly sanctions non-compliance. This framework has been further strengthened by Law No. 2023-451 of June 9, 2023, which specifically regulates commercial influence and imposes enhanced transparency obligations.

What are the legal risks associated with non-compliant product placement ?

The primary risk lies in the reclassification as surreptitious advertising, prohibited under Article 9 of Decree No. 92-280 of March 27, 1992 relating to audiovisual advertising. Such reclassification occurs where the commercial nature of the message is not clearly identifiable. In this respect, consumer law treats the concealment of commercial intent as a misleading commercial practice, capable of engaging the liability of its author.

Product placement also entails intellectual property risks. Article L.713-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code sanctions the unauthorised use of a trademark, while the incorporation of a protected work without authorisation constitutes infringement under Article L.335-2 of the same Code.

Case law has also recognised situations of commercial parasitism, notably in a decision of the French Supreme Court of January 26,1999 (Commercial Chamber, January 26, 1999, No. 96-22.457), where a party unlawfully exploited the reputation of a third party without authorisation or compensation.

Finally, contractual and reputational risks must be fully taken into account. Poorly managed campaigns may give rise to disputes between the parties and damage trademark image, particularly in a digital environment where virality amplifies controversies.

How can a product placement operation be secured ?

Securing a product placement operation primarily relies on a robust contractual framework. Agreements must clearly define the terms of dissemination, transparency obligations and the rights relating to the use of protected elements.

Prior regulatory compliance checks are essential. These must ensure compliance with obligations arising from audiovisual law and consumer law, particularly with respect to the identification of commercial communications.

Finally, ongoing legal monitoring enables anticipation of regulatory developments and adaptation of strategies accordingly. This approach ensures the secure and sustainable exploitation of product placement.

Conclusion

Product placement constitutes a highly effective communication tool, provided that it is legally controlled. It is not merely a marketing instrument, but a regulated mechanism whose implementation requires rigour and foresight.

An effective strategy relies on the alignment of legal compliance, editorial coherence and digital optimisation. Such an approach makes it possible to secure operations while maximising their impact.

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

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1. Must product placement necessarily be paid to qualify legally?
No. The legal qualification of product placement does not rely solely on the existence of financial compensation. A benefit in kind, such as the free provision of a product, a trip, or any other advantage, may be sufficient to characterize a commercial communication. In such cases, transparency obligations remain fully applicable.

2. Is sending a product to an influencer without any obligation to post regulated?
The situation is more nuanced. In the absence of a commitment to publish, there is not necessarily a formal commercial relationship. However, as soon as there is an expectation, even implicit, surrounding the sending of the product, or if the influencer chooses to communicate about it, rules relating to commercial practices may apply, particularly regarding transparency.

3. Can product placement concern something other than physical goods?
Yes. Product placement is not limited to tangible goods. It may relate to services, applications, digital platforms, or even the promotion of a trademark as such. From a legal perspective, what matters is the presence of a promotional intent embedded within the content.

4. Are there sector-specific restrictions?
Yes, sectors such as healthcare products, alcohol, and gambling are subject to strict regulations, and in some cases, prohibitions.

5. Can a trademark freely reuse content created as part of a product placement?
No. In principle, the content remains the property of its creator, unless otherwise agreed. Any reuse by the trademark, particularly for advertising purposes, requires prior authorization or a transfer of rights. Failing this, it may constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights.

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

Introduction

The expansion of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) has revolutionized how businesses and individuals create unique digital identities. As a result, intellectual property holders face significant challenges in protecting their trademarks from cybersquatting. To address these concerns, the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system was introduced, offering a fast and cost-effective way to resolve domain name conflicts. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) was chosen in 2013 as the primary center to administer this procedure, playing a critical role in protecting trademarks in the digital world. Today, the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (ADNDRC) is also responsible for some URS procedures, but its use is more marginal.

What is the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)?

The URS is a domain name dispute resolution procedure, introduced by the ICANN, designed to offer a quick and cost-effective solution for trademark holders seeking to suspend domain names that infringe upon their rights and are identical or confusingly similar to their registered trademarks. Unlike other dispute resolution mechanisms like the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which may lead to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the URS only provides for the suspension of the domain name in question. The suspended domain name remains registered in the name of the defendant but is deactivated, can no longer be used or transferred, and the suspension lasts until the domain name expires.

The role of the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)

Founded in 1986, the NAF is one of the world’s leading providers of alternative dispute resolution services. Chosen by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 2013 to manage the URS procedure, it is responsible for handling disputes related to new gTLDs (namely .online, .site, etc.), complementing the UDRP, which remains applicable for traditional gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net, .org).

Trademark holders who believe their intellectual property rights are being violated can file a complaint with the NAF.

The NAF reviews the complaint and the evidence provided by both parties, considering, among other things:

• Trademark ownership: The complainant holds a valid, registered trademark that is identical or similar to the disputed domain name.
• Bad faith registration: The domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith, typically indicated by the intent to exploit the reputation of the trademark holder.
• Lack of legitimate interest or right to the domain.

If these criteria are met, the NAF will suspend the domain name for the remaining term of its registration. Although temporary, the suspension may be extended for an additional year.

The benefits of the URS for trademark holders

The URS, administered by the NAF, offers several benefits to trademark holders seeking to quickly and efficiently resolve cybersquatting issues:

• Speed and efficiency: The URS procedure is designed to be fast, with most cases resolved within 48 hours to 14 calendar days. This is particularly important when the infringement causes immediate harm (e.g., consumers are misled into thinking they are interacting with an official site or purchasing counterfeit products).
• Cost-effectiveness: Legal procedures and the UDRP can be expensive and time-consuming, especially for companies with limited resources. The URS provides a solution with reduced fees and streamlined administrative management.
• Temporary suspension: The URS allows for the temporary suspension of the disputed domain name, enabling the trademark holder to resolve the issue quickly and mitigate any reputational damage associated with the domain.

The NAF arbitration process

The NAF arbitrators are experts in domain name law and intellectual property. By offering a quick and affordable alternative to traditional litigation, the NAF ensures that trademark holders are not left without recourse in the face of cybersquatting and other malicious actors.

Conclusion

The URS, administered by the NAF, is a vital tool for trademark holders, allowing them to quickly and efficiently resolve domain name conflicts related to cybersquatting. The NAF is positioned as a key player in the protection of intellectual property rights online, and its role continues to grow, as new domain extensions are introduced. By providing trademark holders with an effective solution, the NAF ensures critical protection for online assets.

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 specialized intellectual property lawyers.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. What types of cases can be handled by the URS?
The URS is designed to resolve conflicts where a domain name has been registered in bad faith, with the intent to exploit the reputation of an existing trademark. Typical cases include domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks.

2. Why procedure should be chosen between URS and UDRP ?
The URS and UDRP are both domain name dispute resolution mechanisms, but they differ in their goals and procedures. The URS only allows for the suspension of the domain name, while the UDRP may result in the transfer of the domain name to the trademark holder. The choice between the two depends on the trademark holder’s strategy. (For more information, refer to this article).

3. What evidence is required to initiate a URS procedure ?
To initiate a URS procedure, the complainant must prove that they own a valid, registered trademark, that the domain name is identical or similar to the trademark, and that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Evidence such as screenshots of the disputed domain’s website, copies of the trademark registration, or evidence of the intent to harm the trademark may be required.

4. What happens if a domain is suspended via the URS ?
If a domain is suspended through the URS, it will no longer be accessible to the public for the duration of its registration, but the domain holder does not necessarily lose ownership.

5. What remedies are available to a cybersquatter if its domain name is suspended under the URS?
If a cybersquatter believes the suspension of their domain is unjustified, they can challenge the decision through the appeal process provided by the URS. They will need to provide evidence demonstrating that they have a legitimate right to the domain, such as proof of commercial use of the domain or prior rights to the term.

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 resolution of domain name disputes has become a major issue with the exponential growth of the Internet. Conflicts concerning the ownership of domain names are thus becoming more and more frequent, and their settlements more and more burdensome due to the overload of courts but also due to the high costs that traditional legal procedures can generate. Faced with these challenges, extrajudicial dispute resolution mechanisms have been put in place to offer faster, less expensive and accessible solutions, in order to effectively meet the needs of the parties concerned.

Historical context of domain name dispute resolution in France

Since its introduction in 2011, the SYRELI procedure (Dispute Resolution System) is the oldest out-of-court procedure offered by the AFNIC (French Association for Internet naming in cooperation). It allows the applicant to request from AFNIC the deletion or transmission of a domain name registered in [.fr] when it would infringe prior rights such as a trademark, a trade name, a right of personality…

This procedure is generally aimed at relatively simple and obvious disputes, where the application of Article L.45 2 of the CPCE is manifest.

The case law of the Court of Appeal of Versailles (2011)

The same year, on September 15, 2011, the Versailles Court of Appeal (RG n°2009/07860) was confronted with a case highlighting the limits of AFNIC’s liability in the management of domain names in [.fr]. The court ruled that AFNIC could not be held responsible for the publication or maintenance of a disputed domain name because it did not have an autonomous jurisdictional competence to settle intellectual property disputes. In essence, the judgment stressed that AFNIC, as a registration office, could not replace national courts to assess the existence or infringement of intellectual property rights. This decision highlighted a major issue: the lack of an impartial and independent mechanism capable of effectively resolving these disputes outside the judicial sphere.

Need for improved domain name out-of-court dispute resolution

It is this question of potential bias, inherent in decisions rendered without the intervention of completely independent third parties (AFNIC being in charge of managing domain names under .fr), which led the legislator and practitioners to foresee a more structured response in the 2013 legislative framework. The objective was to provide a balanced, fast and accessible framework for conflicts related to domain names in .fr, while respecting the rights of holders and applicants.

The integration of new legislative principles

An updated legislative framework

Although the SYRELI procedure has been in place since 2011, the legislative power has strongly reformed the framework surrounding the management of domain name disputes in France. It imposed an update of the out-of-court dispute resolution procedure, by integrating the intervention of independent third party in disputes between right holders and domain name holders.

This reform aimed to strengthen the impartiality of the alternative dispute resolution process and improve the management of cybersquatting and trademark infringement disputes It has made it possible to better regulate procedures by establishing more transparent mechanisms but also by allowing a much more in-depth legal analysis of the situation, necessary for the resolution of complex disputes.

The promise of an impartial procedure: the EXPERT PARL procedure

This procedure comes in response to the promise of successive reforms around 2013 and has been introduced in 2016 in partnership with the WIPO, thus allowing an alternative to the SYRELI procedure thanks to the intervention of independent experts selected by WIPO and AFNIC to examine the requests.

These procedures apply to domain names under the extensions managed by AFNIC:

• . fr
• . re (Reunion Island)
• . yt (Mayotte)
• . tf (the Southern and Antarctic Lands)
• . wf (Wallis and Futuna)
• . pm (Saint Pierre and Miquelon)

They are available to any person who can prove an interest in bringing proceedings under Article L.45 2 CPCE (infringement of intellectual property rights, personality rights, public order, etc.).
The main objective is to increase the decision-maker’s independence in cases that raise more complex issues or require an in-depth legal analysis, outside of AFNIC’s internal college.

AFNIC mediation: towards an amicable resolution

In parallel with the SYRELI and PARL EXPERT procedures, which although of an extrajudicial nature remain particularly formal, the settlement of disputes before AFNIC is governed by a framework close to judicial litigation. Indeed, the consent of both parties as to their presence in the proceedings is not required, the decision rendered by AFNIC is binding on the parties (subject to possible legal recourse) and the proceedings also involve procedural costs. The functioning of these mechanisms thus presents strong analogies with that of legal disputes.

It is in this context that AFNIC has introduced, since 2023, a completely free mediation procedure, based on the consent of both parties, encouraging, de facto, an amicable resolution of disputes upstream or as a complement to one of the amicable dispute settlement procedures. This mediation is distinguished by its speed, its flexibility (generally limited to a few days), its strictly confidential nature and the absence of automatic freezing of the domain name concerned.

Conclusion

The settlements of extrajudicial disputes relating to domain names in [.fr] enriched by the SYRELI and PARL EXPERT systems, constitutes today a set of efficient, fast and adapted solutions. While SYRELI remains appropriate for clear and simple disputes, PARL EXPERT offers a genuine impartial analysis by an independent expert, responding to the historical issue of neutrality highlighted by case law. Finally, the recent mediation procedure introduced by AFNIC complements these options to strengthen the use of amicable dispute resolution.

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 specialized intellectual property lawyers

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1.What is an out-of-court dispute resolution procedure?
The extrajudicial procedure allows a conflict to be resolved without going through the courts. It relies on the intervention of a neutral third party who makes a decision on the merits of the dispute, thus offering a quick and often less costly solution than traditional legal actions.

2.Are the decisions taken under these procedures binding?
The decisions taken within the framework of the SYRELI and PARL EXPERT procedures are not directly binding on the parties. They are binding on AFNIC, which must implement the decision. However, if one of the parties is not satisfied with the decision, it may apply to the competent courts to challenge the decision, in particular to request a judicial review of the merits of the dispute

3.What is the duration of an out-of-court dispute resolution procedure?
The duration of an out-of-court procedure varies depending on the complexity of the dispute. In general, procedures like SYRELI are faster (a few weeks), while complex disputes handled by PARL EXPERT may take a little longer, depending on the elements to be examined.

4.Is it possible to resort to an out-of-court procedure for a dispute concerning a domain name outside the extensions managed by AFNIC?
No, the SYRELI and PARL EXPERT procedures are only applicable to domain names registered under extensions managed by AFNIC (such as .fr, .re, .yt, etc.). For other extensions, there are similar mechanisms managed by other registry organizations.

5.Can AFNIC mediation be used after the decision by PARL EXPERT?
No, the mediation must be initiated before or in parallel with the formal procedures. Once a decision has been rendered in the context of PARL EXPERT, it is no longer possible to resort to mediation. However, the parties can still explore other amicable settlement mechanisms after the decision.

6.Do the parties need to be represented by a lawyer as part of the SYRELI or PARL EXPERT procedures?
No, representation by a lawyer is not mandatory in these proceedings. However, in complex disputes, it may be advisable to seek the assistance of a lawyer or an intellectual property expert to maximize the chances of success.

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 .fr domain name does not fall within a simple commercial reservation mechanism. It is part of a structured legal framework, based on the Naming Charter of the Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (AFNIC), which sets out the rules governing the registration and management of French domain name extensions.

This Charter constitutes the normative foundation of the .fr extension. It governs not only the technical conditions of allocation, but above all the eligibility criteria, the obligations relating to registrant identification, the monitoring mechanisms, and the corrective powers vested in AFNIC. Unlike generic extensions, access to the .fr extension is therefore subject to legal requirements linked to territorial anchoring and registrant responsibility.

The new eligibility criteria applicable to .fr domain names, introduced by the Charter in 2011 and subsequently consolidated, reflect a profound evolution: opening the extension to European stakeholders while strengthening legal certainty, traceability, and the fight against abusive uses. These rules have direct implications for French companies, international groups, trademark owners, and legal and digital teams.

The legal and regulatory framework governing eligibility for .fr

AFNIC administers the .fr extension under a public service delegation. As such, its role is not limited to a technical function: it implements an allocation policy based on public-interest objectives, including the security of exchanges, the reliability of actor identification, and the protection of third-party rights.

The Naming Charter is binding on all registrars and registrants. It grants AFNIC the power to verify eligibility at any time, to request supporting documents, and, where appropriate, to suspend or delete a domain name in the event of non-compliance.

The .fr regime is grounded in the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE). This legal basis gives the eligibility criteria binding legal force, going well beyond a simple contractual relationship between the registrant and the registrar.

The new eligibility criteria applicable to .fr domain names

The reform has profoundly changed the philosophy of eligibility. Nationality is no longer relevant. The decisive criterion is the existence of an objective territorial link with Europe.

A .fr domain name may be registered by:

• natural persons residing within the territory of one of the Member States of the European Union, or within Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or Switzerland;
• legal entities established within those same territories.

Domain names registered prior to the entry into force of these criteria were not called into question. Historical registrants may continue to renew and use their domain names, even if they would no longer meet today’s eligibility conditions.

This grandfathering mechanism ensures legal stability and protects existing digital investments.

The new criteria are accompanied by heightened requirements regarding the quality and accuracy of registrant data. Registrants must be reachable and identifiable at all times. AFNIC may carry out spot checks or targeted audits, particularly in the event of a dispute or a report.

Eligibility in practice: natural persons and legal entities

A natural person is eligible provided that they can demonstrate effective residence in an eligible territory. A mere domiciliation or accommodation address is insufficient. AFNIC may require evidence establishing the reality of such residence.

Companies must demonstrate an effective establishment: registered office, branch, subsidiary, or permanent establishment. For international groups, the creation of a European entity often constitutes a strategic lever for securing a .fr domain name portfolio.

Alignment between domain name ownership and the company’s actual legal structure is therefore decisive.

Strategic impacts for businesses, trademarks, and SEO

The .fr extension remains a strong marker of credibility for French users. It enhances consumer trust, facilitates the identification of the economic operator, and improves local visibility on search engines.

Eligibility does not confer any proprietary right. A domain name may be fully eligible while still infringing a prior trademark, a company name, or a trade name.

The analysis must therefore be twofold:

• Compliance with AFNIC eligibility criteria, on the one hand;
• Lawfulness with regard to prior rights, on the other.

Eligibility, compliance, monitoring and dispute mechanisms

Eligibility is not assessed solely at the time of registration. It constitutes a continuing obligation. Any change in circumstances (restructuring, relocation, transfer) may affect the validity of the domain name.

In cases of abusive or bad-faith registration, right holders have access to specific procedures enabling them to seek the cancellation or transfer of the domain name (including UDRP proceedings). Reliable identification of the registrant then becomes a major procedural advantage.

Conclusion

The new eligibility criteria for .fr domain names, as set out in AFNIC’s Naming Charter, reflect a clear objective: to maintain a reliable, traceable, and legally secure French digital space, while opening it to European economic actors.

The .fr extension remains a strategic asset, the management of which requires a rigorous and forward-looking legal approach.

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

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ

1. Is using a French service provider or registrar sufficient to meet the eligibility requirements?
No. Eligibility is assessed solely at the level of the domain name holder. Relying on an intermediary established in France does not satisfy the requirement of an effective territorial link.

2. Can a change in a group’s legal structure weaken a .fr domain portfolio?
Yes. A merger, assignment or transfer of activity may disrupt the alignment between the domain name holder and the eligible entity, exposing the domain name to a risk of non-compliance.

3. Does eligibility provide protection against trademark-based actions?
Absolutely not. Compliance with AFNIC rules does not exclude trademark infringement or unfair competition claims. A compliant domain name may still be challenged on the basis of prior rights.

4. Is the .fr extension suitable for an international digital strategy?
Yes, provided it is integrated into a coherent domain name architecture. The .fr extension should be coordinated with other TLDs to avoid conflicts and optimise territorial protection.

5. Why is legal anticipation essential when managing a .fr domain name?
Because the .fr extension is governed by a specific legal framework that goes beyond purely technical considerations. A proactive legal approach makes it possible to ensure compliance with AFNIC’s rules, prevent infringements of third-party rights, and secure both the ownership and the use of the domain name. It thereby reduces the risks of suspension, forced transfer or litigation, and ensures continuity of operations.

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