domain name

How to protect a domain name?

In today’s digital landscape, having a strong online presence is essential for virtually every business.
The domain name is not just a technical address but rather a strategic asset and the first impression many customers get when interacting with your brand on the internet. Losing control over your domain name or failing to protect it adequately can lead to severe consequences such as lost traffic, reputational harm, or even costly legal disputes.

In this extensive guide (up to 10,000 words), we will explore all facets of domain name protection – from the relevant legal framework (covering aspects like unfair competition and trademark infringement) to practical strategies for ensuring a proactive defense (monitoring, recovering expired domains, multiple TLD registrations, etc.) and handling complex issues (UDRP, Syreli, conflicts with prior or subsequent trademarks).

Specifically, we’ll cover:

  • Why protecting a domain name is crucial;
  • Relevant legal and regulatory bases (such as article L.45 of the CPCE for .fr domains in France, the Intellectual Property Code, etc.);
  • The differences between a domain name vs. an earlier or later trademark;
  • Best practices for securing and monitoring your digital portfolio;
  • The role of unfair competition and trademark infringement actions to enforce your rights;
  • Recovering an expired or third-party-held domain name through auctions, backorders, or legal proceedings;
  • A thorough FAQ addressing key questions (e.g., “How do I prove domain name ownership?” “What are the three components of a domain name?”).

We’ll reinforce everything with practical examples and statistics (such as the number of disputes handled through the UDRP, average resolution times, etc.). Finally, we’ll illustrate how a specialized firm like Dreyfus can help ensure robust and lasting protection of your online presence.

 


1. Why Is Domain Name Protection So Critical?

In a highly competitive digital world, your domain name represents the core of your brand’s online footprint. It serves as a unique identifier for search engines and internet users. Losing control of your domain name can result in:

  • Loss of visibility: If a third party registers a confusingly similar name, it can siphon off your web traffic or create consumer confusion.
  • Reputational damage: A cybersquatter might host malicious or defamatory content under a domain that people associate with your brand.
  • Exorbitant costs: Legal or extrajudicial recoveries can be lengthy and expensive, with no guaranteed outcome.
  • Risk of legal sanction: If you accidentally infringe on someone else’s earlier trademark by using a conflicting domain, you could face a lawsuit and potential liability.

According to a Verisign study, there were about 350 million registered domain names globally (across all TLDs) by the end of 2022. Every day, over 100,000 new domains are created, while thousands expire or change registrants. In this dynamic environment, vigilance is paramount.


2.1. Article L.45 of the CPCE

In France, Article L.45 of the Code des postes et des communications électroniques (CPCE), accessible on Legifrance, grants AFNIC authority over national extensions (.fr, .re, etc.). Its guiding principles include:

  • Compliance with public order;
  • Non-infringement of third-party rights (trademarks, corporate names, etc.);
  • Transparency and non-discrimination in domain allocation;
  • An option for alternative dispute resolution methods (Syreli, PARL Expert) in case of conflict.

2.2. Intellectual Property Code (CPI)

The Intellectual Property Code (CPI) applies when a domain name conflicts with a prior IP right, such as a trademark. Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 address trademark infringement, including unauthorized use of a distinctive sign that is confusingly similar or identical to an existing trademark. A domain name can be a “distinctive sign,” so using it without permission to market similar goods/services can constitute infringement if confusion is likely.

2.3. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code (ex 1382)

When you do not have a registered trademark, you may still sue an imitator under unfair competition principles (based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code). This requires showing a fault (imitation, confusion, parasitism) plus damage and a causal link. This approach is commonly used if two domains in the same business sector cause confusion or if one party is free-riding on another’s reputation.


3. Domain Name vs. Trademark: Earlier or Later Rights

DOMAIN NAME VS. EARLIER TRADEMARK

If there is an earlier trademark (valid and registered) and you register a domain name that is identical or highly similar for related goods/services, you risk trademark infringement. Courts worldwide consistently condemn domain owners who hijack a brand’s recognition or create confusion with an established mark.

DOMAIN NAME VS. LATER TRADEMARK

Conversely, if you have been actively using a domain name for years (even without a trademark registration), and someone else later decides to file a trademark that is identical or closely similar to your domain name, you can sometimes rely on your prior usage to challenge or invalidate that later trademark. You must demonstrate substantial and continuous usage, e.g., website archives, commercial documents, etc.


4. Key Steps to Protect and Secure Your Domain Name

4.1. Prior Checks and Searches

Before registering a domain name, it’s essential to perform:

  • A WHOIS lookup to confirm availability and identify any existing owner;
  • A review of trademark databases (e.g., INPI for France, EUIPO for the EU, WIPO internationally) to avoid conflicts;
  • A check of commercial registers (e.g., Infogreffe in France) for similar corporate names.

This preliminary step reduces the risk of inadvertently infringing earlier rights.

4.2. Choosing the Right TLD

The .fr extension is pivotal in France, while .com remains a global favorite. New TLDs (nTLDs) like .tech, .shop, or .city can refine your branding strategy but be aware of cybersquatting if they aren’t also protected.

4.3. Technical and Administrative Security

Many disputes stem from negligence such as forgetting to renew a domain. We strongly recommend automatic renewal with your registrar and enabling registry lock or transfer lock. Limit domain management to trustworthy personnel so an employee can’t transfer ownership to their personal name or a competitor.

4.4. Registering a Trademark if Necessary

If your domain name is a crucial branding element, registering it as a trademark with the INPI (France) or under the Madrid system (international) significantly enhances protection. In any potential dispute, you can pursue a trademark infringement action rather than relying solely on unfair competition.


5. Unfair Competition Actions

Unfair competition is based on civil liability rules (cf. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, formerly Article 1382). It’s particularly relevant when you don’t have a trademark registration, or the mark’s scope doesn’t fully apply to the domain conflict.

5.1. Elements to Prove

  • Fault: e.g., imitation, creating confusion, or parasitism of your brand or domain;
  • Damage: lost customers, reputational harm, or traffic diversion;
  • Causation: the defendant’s conduct is the direct cause of the harm.

5.2. Illustrative Ruling

Paris High Court (TGI), January 10, 2017 (RG No. 15/07963):
The company operating exemple-luxe.com sued exempledeluxe.fr for unfair competition, alleging that the domain caused confusion among consumers. The court sided with the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to cease using the infringing domain and pay damages.

5.3. Advantages and Drawbacks

Unfair competition is flexible and doesn’t require showing a registered IP title like a trademark. However, proving actual harm (loss, confusion) can sometimes be more demanding than trademark infringement, which relies on the existence of a valid earlier mark to demonstrate a direct violation.


6. Trademark Infringement Actions

If you hold an earlier registered trademark, a trademark infringement lawsuit often provides a stronger remedy than unfair competition. You would invoke Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 of the French IP Code. Infringement requires you to prove:

  • A valid prior trademark;
  • Unauthorized use of an identical or confusingly similar sign;
  • A likelihood of confusion among the relevant public or (for famous marks) a risk of diluting the mark’s distinctiveness.

6.1. Proving Mark Existence

You need to show that your trademark is duly registered and not subject to invalidation or non-use cancellation. If the defendant challenges the trademark (arguing you haven’t used it for over five years, for instance), you may have to demonstrate genuine use to maintain your rights.

6.2. Example Ruling

Paris Court of Appeal, March 2, 2020 (RG No. 18/26345):
The domain marqueXYZ-online.com infringed the earlier trademark “MARQUEXYZ,” as it created a likelihood of confusion. The court ordered transfer of the domain and awarded damages to the trademark owner.

6.3. Scope of Application

Trademark infringement typically applies to commercial use of the domain name. If the domain is used non-commercially or in a completely different industry, confusion may be harder to establish. But for well-known (famous) marks, protection can extend to dissimilar goods/services if there is risk of tarnishment or dilution.


7. Why Monitor Your Domain Names?

Proactive monitoring of your domain(s) (or an entire domain portfolio) involves setting up alerts or scanning systems to foresee or detect:

  • Impending expiration: so you can renew in time and avoid losing the domain to a third party;
  • Cybersquatting: unscrupulous individuals may register near-identical domains (typosquatting, brandjacking);
  • Brand abuse: if new domains incorporate your brand or a misleading segment thereof;
  • Excessive resale prices: squatters may try to extort large sums if you let your domain lapse or if you need to buy it back quickly.

7.1. Services and Tools

Many registrars provide a “watch service” or specialized monitoring solutions.
You can also implement custom scripts or sign up for WHOIS alerts.
The AFNIC (the .fr registry) offers additional monitoring tools for .fr extension domains.

7.2. Recommended Practices

As part of a global strategy, consider:

  • Centralized management: using a single or limited set of registrars to keep track of all your domains.
  • Documentation: maintaining an up-to-date record (spreadsheet or dedicated software) of each domain’s expiration date, contact info, and relevant legal notes.
  • Team training: ensuring your legal department and IT staff coordinate domain naming, renewals, and brand protection effectively.

8. Recovering an Expired or Third-Party Domain Name

Losing a domain name due to non-renewal or seeing it snatched by a malicious party can be challenging, but not always irreversible. Let’s explore the different methods to recover your domain name and how to keep it safe thereafter.

What Is Domain Recovery?

Domain recovery refers to the process of regaining or reacquiring a domain name that was previously held by someone else or had expired and returned to the public pool. Recovery can take the form of:

  • Amiable negotiations: contacting the current registrant to purchase the domain directly;
  • Auctions or backorder platforms: capturing domains in redemption phase or pending delete, often competing with other potential buyers;
  • Extrajudicial proceedings (UDRP, Syreli) if the domain is used in bad faith and violates your rights;
  • Judicial actions for unfair competition or infringement, if the domain is maliciously exploiting your brand or trade name.

Practical Steps to Recover an Expired Domain

  1. Identify the domain’s current phase:
    • Grace period: the original owner may still renew;
    • Redemption period: domain is suspended but not publicly available;
    • Pending delete: domain is set to be released soon;
    • Released or auction phase: domain re-enters open registration or is up for bidding.
  2. Select your approach:
    • Backorder via specialized platforms like SnapNames, Dropcatch, etc.;
    • Participate in any auction if the registrar holds a bidding process;
    • Register the domain directly if it’s fully released to the public.
  3. Finalize acquisition:
    • Once recovered, set up DNS, verify WHOIS listing you as the registrant;
    • Enable auto-renew and domain lock to prevent losing it again.

How to Determine if a Domain Is Available for Recovery?

You can use dedicated tracking services such as Nom-domaine.fr or Domain Tools to check a domain’s actual status (active, redemption, pending delete). Some backorder services provide real-time status and will notify you once the domain is open for new registration or is in an auction phase.
In general, the domain is “available” if it is fully dropped and no longer in a grace or redemption period.

Note that popular or high-value domains can attract multiple bidders the moment they drop, so speed is essential to secure them.


9. Handling Disputes (UDRP, Syreli, Arbitration, Courts)

When a conflict arises — e.g., you believe someone else’s domain infringes your brand, or you’re accused of infringing a prior right — you have several options:

  • Extrajudicial proceedings:
    • UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy): for gTLDs like .com, .net, .org. Typically handled by ICANN-approved dispute centers such as WIPO.

      Duration: about 2–3 months.

      Outcome: transfer or cancellation of the domain if bad faith, no legitimate interest, and confusing similarity are proven.

    • Syreli or PARL Expert with AFNIC for .fr.

      Decisions often within a few weeks to a few months.

      Remedy: domain transfer or deletion if the domain violates L.45 CPCE or third-party rights.

  • Judicial options:
    • Unfair competition (Civil Code, art. 1240), if no trademark but confusion or parasitism is established;
    • Trademark infringement (CPI L.713-2, L.713-3), if you hold an earlier trademark;
    • Arbitration if a contract or prior agreement stipulates it.

According to WIPO, about 65–70% of UDRP cases result in the complainant’s favor, often leading to domain transfer. Meanwhile, AFNIC indicates that “several hundred” Syreli or PARL Expert cases occur each year for .fr, with the majority concluding in transfer or cancellation where the domain clearly infringes a prior right or is used in bad faith.


For a broader view of the phenomenon, here are a few data points:

  • Globally, about 350 million domains were registered across all TLDs by the end of 2022 (source: Verisign).
  • An estimated 3–5% of these are so-called “speculative” registrations, often used for parking, reselling, or cybersquatting (figures vary by TLD).
  • WIPO handled 5,500–6,000 UDRP domain disputes in 2022, reflecting a continuous rise year over year.
  • In the .fr space, “several hundred” Syreli/PARL Expert complaints are filed annually, mostly due to brand or trade name conflicts.

This highlights a strong momentum: disputes are increasing as digitalization expands, making anticipation and prevention the best ways to mitigate risk.


11. Comprehensive FAQ

How Do I Prove Ownership of a Domain Name?

Typically, you check the WHOIS record. The official registrant is shown there (often under “Registrant” or “Owner”). If you appear as the registrant, that is legal proof of ownership. Additionally, keep invoices, emails with your registrar, and historical screenshots to strengthen evidence in case of dispute.

How Do I Protect a Domain Name During a Conflict?

Depending on the context:

  • UDRP or Syreli extrajudicial proceedings: if you show the domain was registered in bad faith and lacks legitimate interest by the respondent, it can be transferred to you.
  • Trademark infringement action: if you own a prior mark. Courts may order cessation of use, domain transfer, and damages.
  • Unfair competition: to show confusion or parasitism under civil liability rules.
  • Amiable negotiation: sometimes buying the domain from its current holder is the fastest solution.

What Is the Validity Condition for a Domain Name?

From a technical standpoint, the domain must meet syntax and length rules. Legally, it must not violate public policy or others’ prior rights (Article L.45 CPCE). AFNIC can revoke or transfer a .fr if those conditions are breached.

What Are the 3 Components of a Domain Name?

Typically, a domain name is structured as follows:

  • Subdomain (e.g., “www” or any other custom subdomain)
  • The second-level name (e.g., “example”)
  • The TLD (e.g., “.fr,” “.com,” “.net”)

So “www.example.fr” is divided into “www” (subdomain), “example” (root), and “.fr” (extension).

What Happens If I Don’t Monitor My Domain Name?

Without regular monitoring, you could:

  • Accidentally let it expire and lose it to a competitor or cybersquatter;
  • Remain unaware of near-identical domain registrations (typosquatting, brandjacking);
  • Face stolen traffic or reputational harm;
  • Pay exorbitant fees if forced to buy it back or engage in litigation.

How Do I Know If a Domain Name Is Expired or About to Expire?

Check the WHOIS record for the domain’s expiration date. Certain services (like ExpiredDomains.net) list domains nearing expiration or in redemption. Also, many registrars provide reminders or notifications for upcoming renewals.

How Long Does a UDRP Case Typically Last?

On average, 2–3 months. WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) handles most disputes. The panel reviews the complainant’s and the respondent’s statements. Where the complainant proves bad faith and no legitimate interest, the panel typically orders transfer or cancellation of the domain.

How Many Cases Does WIPO Handle Each Year?

WIPO deals with 5,500–6,000 domain disputes annually under the UDRP. This figure has been steadily increasing, reflecting the expansion of digital commerce and domain speculation.

What If My .fr Domain Is Being Used by Someone Else?

You can:

  • File a complaint under Syreli (handled by AFNIC) or PARL Expert for a quick extrajudicial resolution.
  • Consider a court action based on unfair competition or infringement if a trademark is involved.

Procedures typically evaluate whether the domain violates L.45 CPCE or prior rights. If so, they can order a transfer or deletion.


12. Conclusion and Contact

This guide has taken you through the **complex realm** of domain name protection and recovery, covering:

  • Legal frameworks in France (CPCE, IP Code) and relevant guidelines for TLDs;
  • Practical strategies (monitoring, locks, multiple TLD coverage) to stay proactive;
  • Legal actions (unfair competition, trademark infringement), along with extrajudicial options (UDRP, Syreli);
  • Domain recovery (through auctions, backorder services, or negotiations) when a domain expires or is held by a third party;
  • Statistics illustrating how domain disputes keep rising globally.

The key is a proactive approach: verifying availability, implementing robust security measures, and staying alert via monitoring. Engaging a specialized law firm can be invaluable for drafting an effective UDRP complaint, managing a Syreli dispute, litigating in court, or generally structuring your online portfolio’s legal defenses.

Looking for customized support?
Contact Dreyfus now to safeguard your domain names effectively.
Our team provides deep expertise in domain name law, trademark law, and IP strategy, ensuring your digital assets are fully protected and your rights enforced.

Read More

The case of the domain name : Afnic rules in favor of the Syndicat des Vins

Afnic (Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération), which is responsible for managing domain names ending in .fr, has issued its decision in the dispute between the Syndicat des Vins Côtes de Provence and the company AOC ET COMPANIES. What is at stake? The domain name <cotesdeprovence.fr>, registered since 2004 by AOC ET COMPANIES. The Syndicat des Vins, the organization that protects and manages the “Côtes de Provence” appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC), contested this ownership, arguing that its registration and use infringed the rights guaranteed by law on this renowned wine appellation.

After analyzing the arguments of both parties, Afnic ruled in favor of the Syndicate and ordered the transfer of the domain name to its benefit. A look back at a landmark decision that illustrates the importance of protecting geographical indications on the Internet.

A domain name at the heart of the battle

The dispute concerned the website <cotesdeprovence.fr>, registered on May 17, 2004 by the company AOC ET COMPANIES, which specializes in IT services and website creation. For almost 20 years, this domain name was not used. But in March 2024, the Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate took steps to recover this domain, believing that it constituted misappropriation of a protected AOC.

According to the Syndicate, the “Côtes de Provence” AOC, recognized since 1977 and enjoying a strong reputation in France and internationally, had to be protected against any unauthorized commercial or private use. In particular, it invoked Article L. 45-2 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code, which allows a domain name to be challenged in the event of infringement of rights protected by law, such as a geographical indication or trademark.

In April 2024, the Syndicate sent a formal notice to the Holder requesting the free transfer of the domain. In response, the latter refused, explaining that he was the legitimate owner and indicating that he was only willing to transfer it as part of a commercial transaction.

Faced with this refusal, the Syndicat referred the matter to Afnic via the PARL EXPERT procedure, an arbitration mechanism dedicated to disputes over .fr domain names.

The parties’ arguments

The Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate: an infringement of legally guaranteed rights

The Syndicate argued that the registration and renewal of the domain name <cotesdeprovence.fr>:

  • Infringed upon the “Côtes de Provence” AOC, protected by the Rural Code and Maritime Fisheries (article L. 643-1).
  • Were likely to weaken or divert the reputation of this AOC by preventing the legitimate rights holders from using the domain name.
  • Were the result of a registration in bad faith, since the holder had no connection with the wine sector and had never used it to promote an activity related to the appellation.
  • Were motivated by a purely speculative interest, as the Holder had offered to sell the domain for financial compensation.

The Holder, AOC ET COMPANIES: a desire to preserve its rights

For its part, the company AOC ET COMPANIES rejected these accusations, stating that:

  • It had been the legitimate owner of the domain since 2004, having acquired it entirely legally according to the “first come, first served” rule applied by Afnic.
  • The acronym “AOC” in its trade name did not refer to “Appellations d’Origine Contrôlée” (Controlled Designations of Origin), but to its slogan “[Surname] Optimizes your Trade and Etc.”
  • The domain name did not infringe the rights of the Syndicate, as it had never been used to promote wines or a competing product.
  • The sale of the domain was not a sign of bad faith, but a direct consequence of the Syndicate’s efforts to claim its transfer.

The Expert’s analysis: abusive private use of the domain name

The Expert appointed by Afnic examined the arguments and evidence of both parties. Several factors weighed in favor of the Syndicate:

  • The protected nature of the “Côtes de Provence” AOC: the Expert recognized that this appellation, governed by an official decree of 1977, benefited from legal protection and could not be used without justification.
  • The perfect identity between the domain name and the AOC: the domain <cotesdeprovence.fr> completely reflected the appellation, which risked creating confusion.
  • The absence of legitimate exploitation: the Holder had never used the domain for 20 years and had no connection with the world of wine.
  • The sale of the estate: the fact of having offered the domain name for sale and of promoting it on a dedicated site was perceived as an attempt at speculation, which constitutes evidence of bad faith according to article R. 20-44-46 of the CPCE.

Thus, the Expert considered that the registration and use of the domain infringed the rights guaranteed by law and that it should be transferred to the Côtes de Provence Wine Syndicate.

 

A decision in favor of the protection of geographical indications

On September 10, 2024, Afnic confirmed the Expert’s decision and ordered the transfer of the domain name <cotesdeprovence.fr> to the Syndicat des Vins Côtes de Provence.

The decision was enforced after a period of 15 days, during which time the Holder may still initiate legal proceedings if they so wish.

This case illustrates the importance of protecting geographical indications on the Internet. Domain names, as strategic communication and marketing tools, cannot be monopolized for speculative purposes when they include designations protected by law.

Nevertheless, this decision raises questions, because it calls into question the ownership of a domain name registered for 20 years. Although foreclosure does not apply in this case, it creates real legal uncertainty for domain name holders. In this case, this situation can be explained by the lack of use of the domain name during this entire period. In general, establishing a system of limitation for this type of procedure would be appropriate in order to guarantee legal certainty.

 

Dreyfus Law Firm, with its expertise in intellectual property and domain name protection, assists its clients in defending their rights against the risks of cybersquatting and infringement of their IP rights. We act in UDRP disputes, analyzing each case from the perspective of trademark law and regulations specific to protected geographical indications (PGI) and controlled designation of origin (CDO). Thanks to our experience in the strategic management of domain name portfolios, we implement tailored solutions to anticipate, monitor and defend the digital assets of our clients, whether they are producers, professional associations or companies in the wine and food industry.

FAQ

  1. Can a registered designation of origin (AOC) be protected on the Internet?

Yes. An AOC is a distinctive sign protected by law. The registration of a domain name containing an AOC without legitimate justification may be contested by the organization in charge of its defense.

  1. What can be done if a domain name contains an AOC without authorization?

The AOC defense organization may take legal action or resort to extrajudicial procedures such as PARL EXPERT with Afnic for .fr domain names, or UDRP for international extensions (.com, .org, etc.).

  1. How does Afnic’s PARL EXPERT procedure work?

PARL EXPERT is a fast, out-of-court procedure for resolving disputes relating to .fr domain names. An expert examines the arguments of the parties and can decide on the transfer or deletion of the disputed domain name.

  1. Is it possible to register a domain name for the sole purpose of reselling it?

No. Speculative registration of a domain name, without the intention of exploiting it but with the aim of reselling it at a high price, may be considered as use in bad faith and give rise to a dispute.

  1. Can a domain name corresponding to an AOC be used by a company outside the sector?

The use of a domain name corresponding to an AOC by a company that has no connection with the sector concerned may be contested if it risks weakening or misappropriating the reputation of the appellation.

  1. What criteria can be used to prove bad faith in the registration of a domain name?

Bad faith can be established if the domain holder:

  • Has no legitimate interest in registering it,
  • Seeks to profit from the reputation of an AOC or a trademark,
  • Offers the domain for sale after being contacted by a right holder,
  • Does not actively exploit it for a long period of time.
  1. Can an AOC be considered as public property on the Internet?

No. AOCs are protected by legislation and cannot be freely used by third parties without authorization. They benefit from a specific legal framework that prevents their abusive appropriation.

  1. Can an organization that defends an AOC recover a domain name without financial compensation?

Yes. If the organization demonstrates that the registration of the domain name infringes the AOC, Afnic or a competent authority may order its transfer without any obligation to compensate the original holder.

Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Follow us on social media!

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

2024 Retrospective: Intellectual Property and Innovation at Dreyfus

The year 2024 was marked by significant legislative developments, strategic innovations, and impactful initiatives for Dreyfus, a firm specializing in intellectual property. This retrospective highlights the key milestones, in-depth analyses, and tools developed to support businesses in a constantly evolving legal environment.

Key Articles and Legislative Developments

The firm analyzed several major developments in 2024, including:

  1. New European Measures for Sustainable Packaging: Adopted by the European Parliament, these measures aim to reduce packaging waste and promote eco-friendly alternatives. Practical recommendations were shared to help businesses comply with these new requirements.
  2. Modernization of the Designs and Models Regime: The “Designs and Models Package”, effective May 1, 2025, introduces significant adjustments to enhance the protection of creative works within the European Union. The firm’s articles explained these changes and their impact on creative businesses.
  3. Monitoring Brands on Social Media: A critical topic in the digital age. The firm explored advanced strategies to counter online intellectual property infringements and introduced new services for monitoring domain names and company branding.

Modernized Services and Tools

To address clients’ growing needs, the firm expanded its services in:

  1. Monitoring of Brands, Domain Names, Social Media, and Designs & Models: Enhanced vigilance to protect your intangible assets in an increasingly complex environment.
  2. Tailored Support: The firm developed customized solutions for startups and emerging businesses, offering tools suited to their limited resources.

Events and Internationalization

The firm actively participated in international conferences and organized webinars on various topics, consolidating its leadership role in intellectual property.

Looking Ahead to 2025

For 2025, the firm plans to continue exploring new technologies, introduce training tailored to clients’ specific needs, and strengthen its international collaborations.

We wish all our clients, partners, and collaborators an excellent year 2025, filled with success and serenity. May this new year be marked by positive achievements and lasting peace worldwide.

Dreyfus Law firm partners with a global network of intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media

Instagram

LinkedIn 

Read More

ICANN’s Accreditation of Blockchain-Specialized Companies: A New Chapter for Domain Names

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), plays a pivotal role in maintaining the security, stability, and interoperability of the internet. As a regulatory body, it also ensures to stimulate competition and develop policies for unique Internet identifiers.

ICANN’s Role in the Internet Ecosystem

ICANN is at the heart of the domain name management system, overseeing the registrar accreditation process. To be accredited, an entity must meet strict criteria including significant financial considerations, such as a minimum working capital. Following the approval of the application, an accreditation agreement is signed with ICANN. This regulatory framework ensures that the internet remains a globally open and accessible platform, safeguarding the security and stability of the domain name system.

Accreditation of Freenam and Unstoppable Domains by ICANN

Recently, ICANN accredited two companies specializing in blockchain technologies: Freenam and Unstoppable Domains. These accreditations were surprising, especially considering these entities were once critics of ICANN. This integration symbolizes a significant evolution in the internet ecosystem, reflecting an openness towards technological innovations and new paradigms in domain name management.

Freenam and Unstoppable Domains can now offer gTLDs (Generic Top-Level Domains), top-level domain extensions used globally, like “.com” or “.net”, and country-specific ccTLDs (Country Code Top-Level Domains), such as “.fr” for France or “.de” for Germany.

Before Accreditation: The Web3 Domain Offering

These entities already offered Web3 domain names, such as “.eth” or “.wallet”. These domain names differ radically from traditional extensions like “.com” as they do not name an IP address but rather a public key used for sending and receiving crypto assets on the blockchain, similar to an interactive IBAN capable of not only facilitating financial transactions but also interacting with smart contracts.

A Web3 domain is designed to be uncensorable and immutable. It allows users to link an easily memorable blockchain address to their crypto wallet, website, or social media profiles, without worrying about censorship or suspension of their domain name by a third party. These technical and functional characteristics invite us to question the suitability of the term “domain name”. Some authors suggest they be called “digital wallet names”.

While gTLD-type classic domain name extensions are assigned and managed under the control of ICANN, there is no international entity or organization for Web3 domain names, which are registered on a public blockchain, inherently decentralized. Moreover, these Web3 domain names are issued by naming companies that do not retain any administrative rights over these domain names or the smart contracts of the issued NFTs.

Future Perspectives

This accreditation is likely to intensify competition in the domain name sector, offering more choices and innovative features to users, in line with blockchain advancements. Benefits for end-users include more choices and enhanced security, as no third party can intervene to modify or delete these blockchain domains, thus eliminating the need for periodic renewal.

Conclusion

This new step in domain name regulation underscores ICANN’s continuous adaptation to new technological realities and its crucial role in facilitating an orderly transition to more innovative and secure domain name systems.

Thanks to its expertise in Web 3.0, Dreyfus Law Firm supports you through every stage of your blockchain projects.

Dreyfus Law Firm partners with a global network of lawyers specialized in intellectual property.

 

Join us on social media to stay updated on our latest news and discoveries in the field of intellectual property.

Instagram

LinkedIn 

Read More

Protect Your Company’s Image, Brands, and Domain Names with Our New Domain Name Monitoring Service!

In today’s digital environment, businesses are increasingly exposed to various risks related to the security of their online assets. Domain names, in particular, have become prime targets for cybercriminals and other malicious actors seeking to exploit a brand’s reputation or engage in cybersquatting. Aware of these challenges, Dreyfus Law Firm introduces its new Domain Name Monitoring Service, an innovative and comprehensive solution designed to proactively protect your company’s image, brands, and domain names.

 

The Importance of Domain Names in Today’s Digital Landscape

Domain names are much more than just a web address. They are your company’s gateway to the digital world, the online identity of your brand, and a key element of your business strategy. They convey your brand image, serve as a point of contact for your customers and partners, and are often integrated into your digital marketing efforts. However, the increased importance of domain names has also caught the attention of cybercriminals.

 

These actors exploit domain names in various ways to harm businesses. Whether through the creation of fraudulent websites using similar domain variations (a practice known as typosquatting) or by registering similar domains to lure your customers into phishing scams, the risks are real and multifaceted. Additionally, some malicious actors use these domains to set up email servers to launch deceptive email campaigns aimed at stealing sensitive information or spreading malware.

 

For all these reasons, proactive monitoring of your domain names has become an absolute necessity. Simply registering a domain name and assuming it is protected is no longer enough. You need to continuously monitor similar domain names, their usage, and their integrity, and be ready to react quickly if an issue arises. This is where Dreyfus Law Firm’s Domain Name Monitoring Service comes into play.

 

A Service Designed for Multi-Dimensional Protection

Our Domain Name Monitoring Service stands out for its holistic approach and its ability to cover all critical aspects of similar domain names. It is built on three main pillars: monitoring WHOIS records, online content publication, and email server activation associated with monitored domains.

 

  1. WHOIS Record Monitoring: WHOIS is a public directory containing information about domain name owners, including their contact details, domain creation and expiration dates, and other relevant details. By monitoring these records, we can immediately detect any unauthorized or suspicious changes that could indicate an attempt to take control of your domain (e.g., a change in ownership or DNS servers). This information is crucial for anticipating threats and taking necessary action before any damage is done.

 

  1. Online Content Publication Monitoring: Monitoring content published under domain names associated with your brand is equally essential. This pillar of the service focuses on detecting fraudulent, defamatory, or simply illegal content published on domains linked to your company. For example, a website that imitates yours and publishes false or malicious information can cause significant harm to your reputation. By quickly detecting content related to monitored domain names, we can promptly take the necessary legal action to have it removed.

 

  1. Email Server Activation Monitoring: Finally, one of the most insidious aspects of domain-related cyberattacks is the activation of email servers to launch phishing or spam campaigns. By monitoring the activation of these servers, we can detect and neutralize these threats to limit the risk of them reaching your customers or partners. This type of monitoring is especially important in a context where email remains one of the preferred attack vectors for cybercriminals.

 

Monitoring Tailored to Your Specific Needs

We understand that each company is unique and that digital security needs can vary greatly from one organization to another. That’s why our Domain Name Monitoring Service is fully customizable. We offer two monitoring frequencies: weekly or daily, depending on your specific needs and the level of risk you are exposed to.

 

Weekly Monitoring: For companies whose domain names are less likely to be attacked or who have less sensitive digital assets, weekly monitoring may be sufficient. This monitoring mode allows for the detection of changes or suspicious activities regularly enough to anticipate and manage risks without requiring real-time monitoring.

 

Daily Monitoring: For companies with highly sensitive digital assets or those operating in sectors where cybersecurity risks are particularly high, such as finance, healthcare, or e-commerce, daily monitoring is recommended. This mode allows for almost instant response to any suspicious changes, thereby limiting the risks of malicious exploitation of your domain names.

 

Two Operational Modes for Optimal Responsiveness

To better meet our clients’ expectations, we have designed two distinct operational modes for our Domain Name Monitoring Service:

 

  1. Automatic Notifications: This mode is ideal for companies that want to be informed in real-time of changes or suspicious activities related to their domain names. Whenever a modification is detected, whether it’s a change in WHOIS information, the publication of new online content, or the activation of email servers, you will be immediately alerted. This system allows you to react quickly to protect your rights and prevent irreversible damage to your brand or digital assets.

 

  1. Legal Analysis and Recommendations: This mode offers an even higher level of service by including the intervention of our legal experts. Each detected change is carefully reviewed by our team of lawyers, who assess the relevance of the changes and determine if they pose a threat to your company. If a risk is identified, we provide detailed recommendations on the actions to take to manage this threat. This approach allows you to benefit not only from real-time monitoring but also from tailored legal expertise, ensuring that you receive only relevant alerts and are fully equipped to anticipate and resolve issues related to monitored domain names.

 

Why Choose Dreyfus Law Firm’s Domain Name Monitoring Service?

Dreyfus Law Firm is distinguished by its expertise in intellectual property and cybersecurity, as well as its commitment to providing personalized solutions tailored to each client’s specific needs. By opting for our Domain Name Monitoring Service, you benefit from robust and effective protection against digital threats, supported by a team of experienced professionals.

 

Our holistic and proactive approach allows you to secure your domain names optimally, ensuring that every aspect of their use is monitored and protected. Additionally, our ability to offer in-depth legal analyses and personalized recommendations makes us a partner of choice for any company concerned with protecting its digital assets in an ever-evolving landscape.

Conclusion

In a world where digital threats are constantly evolving, it is essential not to leave certain domain names unmonitored. Dreyfus Law Firm’s Domain Name Monitoring Service is designed to provide you with peace of mind by ensuring continuous and proactive protection of your digital assets. Whether you choose automatic notifications or detailed legal analysis, you can count on our expertise to secure your domain names and protect your business from the growing risks of cyberspace.

 

Don’t wait to take action. Contact us today to learn more about our Domain Name Monitoring Service and discover how we can help you secure your digital assets for a safer and more secure future while keeping your budget under control.

Read More

New AFNIC Mediation Procedure: Fast and Free Dispute Resolution for Domain Name Holders

La nouvelle mesure de médiation de l’AFNIC

New AFNIC Mediation Procedure: Fast and Free Dispute Resolution for Domain Name Holders

 

On July 3, 2023, AFNIC launched a mediation procedure to resolve disputes between right holders and domain name holders. The aim of this innovative measure is to offer parties a free, amicable means of resolving disputes, limited, however, to domain names managed by AFNIC (“.fr”).

The main role of AFNIC (Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération) is to manage the domain name registry in France (.fr).

 

What Is Afnic’s New Mediation Procedure?

 

The AFNIC mediation procedure is a free service set up to settle disputes relating to “.fr” domain names. It aims to provide a rapid and effective solution to disputes that may arise between domain name holders, registrars, and third parties. Mediation is based on an amicable process, which means that it takes place without recourse to the courts, enabling the parties involved to reach an agreement without incurring additional costs.

The procedure is simple and accessible to all parties concerned. To initiate mediation, one of the parties must submit a request to AFNIC, providing information on the dispute in question, the domain names involved, and the reasons for the dispute. Once the request has been received, AFNIC can appoint a mediator to deal with the dispute. The mediator must be neutral and impartial.

Once this has been done, the mediator will contact the parties to hear their arguments and help them find common ground. This is a confidential process, usually conducted online. The significant advantage of this approach is that the dispute can be resolved without the parties having to face each other physically.

 

What Are the Advantages of Mediation?

 

AFNIC mediation offers a number of advantages for parties involved in a domain name dispute:

Firstly, the mediation procedure enables the parties to reduce their costs considerably, especially when compared with other, much more costly procedures.

Secondly, unlike legal proceedings, which can take months or even years, AFNIC mediation offers a rapid resolution, usually within a few weeks. This is also a real advantage for the parties, especially in view of the long delays associated with the usual procedures.

The mediation process is also confidential, preserving the reputation and confidentiality of the parties involved. The remote procedure facilitates interaction between the parties, who are not obliged to be in the same room or in direct communication to resolve the dispute.

Mediation also enables the parties to find creative, customized solutions that meet their specific needs. In this respect, it is a flexible measure.

Finally, it is a method of resolution that encourages cooperation and communication between the parties, thus facilitating an amicable resolution of the dispute.

AFNIC’s free mediation procedure is a valuable resource for holders of <.fr> domain names faced with disputes. It offers a rapid, confidential alternative to legal proceedings, enabling parties to resolve their disputes amicably. If you’re involved in a .fr domain name dispute, don’t hesitate to consider AFNIC mediation as an effective solution for reaching a fair and rapid agreement. You can well imagine its value in cases where the parties are willing to find an amicable solution… that’s what mediation is all about!

 

For expert guidance  on AFNIC’s mediation process, contact Dreyfus today for a free consultation to secure your online presence.

Read More

Legal Watch : A public figure’s name constitutes a right that can be the basis for UDRP proceedings

Less than a month after the 2022 presidential elections, a WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s Expert rendered a decision regarding a domain name reproducing the name of the re-elected candidate Emmanuel Macron.

 

The domain name in dispute, <emmanuel-macron.com>, had been registered on the 3rd October 2015, during the time when Emmanuel Macron was still the Minister of Economy, Industry, and Digital Technology. Far from merely imitating the future president’s name, this litigious domain name would redirect to this website, which in fact, was the official website of the adverse polemist candidate during the 2022 presidential election. In this respect, we note that the domain name did not redirect to content related to Mr. Eric Zemmour before 2022 (according to an Archive.org search).

 

 

 

 

 

The complainant logically argues in their complaint that they must fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, where it is specified that there are three cumulative elements necessary to claim the transfer of the disputed domain name.  These are :

 

♦ The similarity of the domain with a right of the complainant.

  • The lack of right or legitimate interest in the domain name on the respondent’s part.
  • The proof of bad faith registration and use by the registrant.

 

The interest of this case stands within two main points : the assessment of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s prior rights, and the characterization of the registrant’s legitimate interest.

 

The complainant presents his arguments based on the existence of non-registered rights to the trademark “EMMANUEL MACRON”, a concept no longer existing under French law (except for well-known trademarks). If, by the simple fact that a domain name contains a family name that is not sufficient enough to justify an interest in bringing an action, it is important to note that under the Policy, the Experts’ assessment varies depending on the use of the family name made by the complainant. Here, the domain name was reproducing both the first name and the family name of Mr. Macron.

 

The Expert considers that when a person’s name is used as a trademark-like identifier in commerce, a complainant may be able to establish unregistered rights from that name to succeed in the UDRP proceedings. In this case, the Expert explains and outlines that the complainant’s use of the name “Emmanuel Macron” is not limited to his political activities but also extends to a commercial use being in this case, the publication and sale of books. Therefore, from the commercial use of his name, the complainant satisfies the requirements of the Expert. The Expert in retrospect acknowledges him as holding a non-registered trademark right. Therefore, the identity of the signs in comparison is established.

 

As trademark specialists, we would have appreciated a more puristic demonstration. In France, trademark rights cannot be acquired through simple use without registration (except for well known trademarks). In this case, it was up to the complainant to demonstrate that he had acquired trademark rights under Common Law or that the name “EMMANUEL MACRON” was a well-known trademark for certain goods and/or services.

 

We assume that the case was urgent and that the Expert wanted to do the right thing in this unacceptable situation. The complainant was fortunate that the case was assigned to an Expert who wanted to achieve a fair decision at the expense of trademark laws.

 

The Expert then raises the question of legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, according to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

In this case, the disputed domain name, redirects to the website of another opposing political figure. Therefore, the use of this domain name does not seem commercial and therefore, could more likely fall into the scope being freedom of speech.

 

However, previous experts have ruled that the right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily extend to the registration or use of a domain name which is identical to a trademark or a right, when it could create a risk of confusion through impersonation. Therefore, the use of the name EMMANUEL MACRON to redirect to his opponent’s website, Eric Zemmour, would incur a risk of implicit affiliation with the complainant.  This would also constitute, on the part of the respondent, an attempt to misleadingly divert Internet users, especially since the respondent cannot claim to be known or be recognized under the name “EMMANUEL MACRON”.

 

As a result, and according to paragraph 4 (c) (iii) of the Policy, the Expert has determined and decided that it cannot therefore, be considered as a legitimate non-commercial or fair use status. In conclusion, the registration and use in bad faith were also acknowledged for the same reasons. As the domain name was registered at the end of 2015, the panel observed that the complainant had already acquired significant notoriety as a public figure in France. Moreover, the redirection to the website of a political opponent was likely to mislead Internet users and disrupt the complainant’s activities.

 

In retrospect, this case could have been subject to much harsher and serious consequences, as the intent seemed to take the form of manipulating an electorate in the run up to the presidential election, rather than taking advantage for commercial purposes.

Read More

The Culturespaces company must return the domain names and social network content to the city of Nîmes

NîmesOn the 16th of May 2022, the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) handed down a decision in its 7th and 2nd chambers following the appeal lodged by the company ‘Culturespaces’ regarding the interim order issued on December 13th, 2021, by the Nîmes Administrative Court.

Culturespaces operated under a public service delegation, for the touristic and cultural exploitation of several sites in the city of Nîmes: the Nîmes arenas, the Maison Carrée and the Magne Tower. In order to do this, Culturespaces registered domain names for these sites belonging to the city of Nîmes.

At the end of the public service concession agreement, the company refused to return the intangible assets to the city of Nîmes. The city then referred the matter to the interim proceedings judge who ruled in favour of Culturespaces.

The Council of State ruled that the intangible assets, notably the domain names and social network content, were necessary for the operation of the public service and that they were assets likely to be qualified as assets returned from the concession.

The Council of State therefore ordered Culturespaces to return all the intangible assets necessary for the operation of the public service to the municipality of Nîmes.

Read More

No cybersquatting in the event of uncertainty regarding the transfer of a trademark

veille(WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. D2022-0770, 11 May 2022, BH Vigny, BH Hotels, BH Balzac v. Paulo Ferreira, MBI Holdings)

 

In the decision held on May 11th, 2022, companies BH Vigny, BH Hotels, BH Balzac, all belonging to the same group, saw their UDRP complaint get rejected for lack of precision on an ongoing legal procedure.

The dispute involved five different domain names, namely <amarantebeaumanoir.com>, <amarantecannes.com>, <amarantechampselysees.com>, <hotelbalzac.com> and <hoteldevigny.com>, each of which referred to a French luxury hotel. The domain names were registered by Respondent, MBI Holdings. The evidence in the case shows that the director of MBI Holdings was also the director of two other entities: JJW Luxury Hotels and Amarante.

The domain names were registered while JJW Luxury Hotels and Amarante still owned the hotels in question. JJW Luxury Hotels owned the Hotel Balzac and the Hotel de Vigny, while Amarante managed the Amarante Champs-Elysées, Amarante Beau Manoir and Amarante Cannes.

The case is complex as it takes place in the context of a takeover between JJW Luxury Hotels and Amarante and Complainants. Several hotels in France had been acquired by the Complainants, including the above-mentioned hotels. Shortly before the UDRP complaint was filed, the three Complainants, members of the same group, had initiated not only a business transfer agreement, but also a trademark assignment agreement with the Respondent. According to the Complainants, the effect of this agreement was to grant full ownership of the trademarks and domain names associated with the aforementioned hotels.

However, Respondent argued that, contrary to the Complainants’ assertion, the transfer of the businesses and associated trademarks had not yet become permanent. In fact, a dispute was pending before the French court. Similarly, it appeared that certain contractual provisions provided for the retention of certain company funds in an escrow account. These provisions therefore suggested that the transfer of assets were not complete, final or irreversible.

Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires three elements to be met in order to claim the transfer of a disputed domain name: similarity of the domain name to a prior right of the Complainant, evidence of the absence of a right or legitimate interest of the domain name’s current holder, and evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name by the current holder.

The first element is in default, according to the Expert, who however moderates his statement. The question of ownership of rights is raised, as the Respondent claims that the rights to trademarks and domain names have not yet been validly transferred. The Expert asserts that the evidence provided by the Complainants is not sufficient in order to determine whether the transfer of ownership is actually effective. In fact, Complainants did not provide any information on the ongoing legal proceedings, nor did he mention them in his complaint.

Understandably, the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) is not specifically discussed by the Expert, as it is essentially linked to the first. If Complainants are not able to demonstrate that the transfer of rights has taken place, they cannot prove that the Respondent, who previously held the rights, no longer does so.

Finally, the third requirement also poses a challenge for the Expert. In light of the context, it seems unlikely that the domain names were registered in bad faith, as the Respondent appeared to demonstrate a legitimate registration and use of the five domain names. Again, the lack of evidence does not allow the Panel to conclude that the bad faith test is met.

In summary, the texts are applied strictly and it is quite easy to understand the Expert’s position in this case. The solution could undoubtedly have been quite different if Complainants had communicated about the ongoing legal proceedings and submitted evidence that would have demonstrated the Respondent’s bad faith. According to the Expert, this case is not a classic case of cybersquatting, but rather a concurrent dispute to legal proceedings already underway.

Read More

ICANN: Next round of new gTLDs unlikely to happen before 2023

ICANNOn February 18, 2021, ICANN’s Generic Name Support Organization (gNSO) Board voted to approve the “New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report.

This Final Report contains certain statements, recommendations, and implementation guidelines, which are defined as “Outputs”. It includes statements about existing policy, recommendations for new policy, and various guidelines on how best to implement it. It addresses some 40 topics that cover all aspects of new gTLD deployment, such as how the deployment should proceed, under what criteria, etc.

On March 24, 2021, this Final Report was transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors, which must now review the Outputs to determine whether the recommendations are in the best interests of ICANN and its community.

To accomplish this, the Committee requested an “Operational Design Phase (ODP)“, launched in late 2021 and expected to last ten months. It should be transparent to the public and regular reports should be issued . This timeframe could be extended if unforeseen circumstances were to arise.

Therefore, it is very likely that the next round of new gTLDs will be postponed to 2023. All the more so as some of the recommendations raise questions, particularly with regard to the absence of reinforced protection measures against abuse of the Domain Name System (DNS).

Read More