domain name

.brand extension: a complete guide for companies ahead of the ICANN 2026 wave

As digital trust becomes a strategic asset, companies are looking to regain full control of their online identity. The forthcoming opening of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) second round for personalized internet extensions, known as “.brand” TLDs or “brand TLDs”,  represents a rare opportunity to build a sovereign digital territory under your own brand.

The .brand 2025 Circle, organized by the Afnic, brought together pioneers and experts in the field in October to shed light on the challenges and conditions for success in this new wave.

Nathalie Dreyfus, founder of Dreyfus law firm, shared her expertise on the central role of intellectual property in preparing applications for a .brand.

Firmly anchored in this context, the journey to apply for a .brand extension requires strategic foresight. This guide provides companies with a practical roadmap to understand why it matters, how to prepare, and what success factors to keep in mind ahead of the 2026 wave.

Why consider a .brand extension?

Digital sovereignty and enhanced security

With a .brand extension, a company gains exclusive control over its top-level domain. It defines who can register sub-domains, how they’re managed, and under what security standards. Solidnames emphasises that one of the major benefits of a “brand TLD” is security: preventing phishing, cybersquatting and misuse of the domain namespace.

“A .brand is much more than an extension: it is a sovereign digital zone that promotes trust,” emphasizes Nathalie Dreyfus.

Brand coherence, differentiation and innovation

A .brand extension allows all your digital services , website, extranet, apps, partner portals , to operate under a consistent naming architecture (e.g., service.company.brand). This unified digital footprint strengthens brand identity and helps you stand out. Solidnames points out that brands which have registered large numbers of domains under their .brand extension (for example top German and French firms) show how the model can work when used actively.

Strategic asset and portfolio optimisation

According to Solidnames, brand TLDs represent long-term digital assets. They provide flexibility , you can register names for marketing campaigns or future services without negotiation and fend off third-party registrations.

In essence, a .brand is akin to owning your own digital real estate.

The investment: costs, returns and considerations

Applying for a .brand extension involves significant investment: registry setup, technical infrastructure, governance, ongoing maintenance. Solidnames notes the next round is expected in 2026, and preparation begins much earlier.

Companies must therefore view this as a strategic investment, not just a marketing or IT project. Key ROI levers: strengthened trust, brand protection, ownership of your digital domain, potential cost savings in defensive registrations.

Preparations ahead of the 2026 wave

Timeline and milestones

Solidnames explains that while the official application window opens around April 2026, the preceding Applicant Guidebook (AGB) of the ICANN will be published earlier, and the overall selection/process may conclude late 2026/early 2027.

Internal preparation steps

  • Assemble a multidisciplinary team: legal, brand management, IT/infrastructure, cybersecurity, marketing.
  • Conduct a feasibility study: technical, governance, cost-benefit.
  • Define concrete use-cases for the .brand extension (client facing, partner access, internal services, campaigns).
  • Integrate your intellectual property strategy: protect your grand, secure trademarks across jurisdictions, align domain + trademark strategy (Solidnames emphasises this alignment).

Domain naming policy and governance

Solidnames stresses the importance of a full naming charter: spelling rules, sub-domain conventions, renewal strategy, registration/abandonment policy.  This should be part of the governance framework of your .brand registry.

Risks and pitfalls to avoid

  • Under-use: many brand TLDs register few domains. Solidnames notes that only a small percentage exceed several hundred domain names.
  • Governance and cost burden: the registry must be operated with robust rules, otherwise risk to brand credibility.
  • Lack of strategic vision: without clear use-cases and measurement, the .brand might remain a symbolic asset rather than a performance lever.
  • Regulatory/process uncertainty: the timeline, rules and costs may evolve. Early preparation must factor in flexibility.

For Nathalie Dreyfus, “the success of a brand depends on consistency between legal, technical, and marketing perspectives.”

Keys to success

  1. Clear strategic objective: define what the .brand is for and who will benefit from it.
  2. Active use-case roadmap: show how domain names under the extension will be used (not just registered).
  3. Governance clarity: process, roles, naming policy, renewal and abandonment rules.
  4. Measurement plan: metrics on traffic, trust, domain utilization, cost versus benefit.
  5. Strong alignment with brand & IP strategy: ensure the extension supports your brand identity and legal protection.
  6. Start early: even though the application window is later, the groundwork must begin well in advance.

Dreyfus law firm role

Dreyfus law firm has been helping companies protect and enhance their intangible assets for over 20 years.

Our team helps trademark owners to:

  • Assess the relevance of a .brand for their digital strategy
  • Compile a complete ICANN application
  • Define governance and registration policy
  • Secure the trademark and subdomains

Conclusion

The next wave of brand TLDs offers companies a rare window to convert their domain strategy into a true strategic asset. By securing a .brand extension, you can reinforce brand identity, enhance trust, control your digital territory and innovate in naming. But the window for action is limited: preparation must begin now. Solidnames’ analysis underscores the fact that those who treat a .brand as a long-term governance, brand and digital strategy will derive the greatest value.

“The .brand is the new frontier of branding: it transforms the domain name into a strategic asset,” concludes Nathalie Dreyfus.


Q&A

What is a .brand (brand TLD)?
A .brand is a top-level domain reserved exclusively for a company’s trademark. It allows that company to manage the namespace, register sub-domains, and build a unique digital identity.

What does it cost to apply for a .brand?
The costs are of about USD 200 000 and they include the application (registry/ICANN fees), setup of infrastructure, governance, ongoing operations.

When can I apply for a .brand?
The anticipated timeframe is around April 2026 for opening the application window, with substantial preparation required in 2025.

Read More

.brand extension: A complete guide for companies ahead of the ICANN 2026 wave

As digital trust becomes a strategic asset, companies are looking to regain full control of their online identity. The forthcoming opening of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) second round for personalized internet extensions, known as .brand TLDs or brand TLDs, represents a rare opportunity to build a sovereign digital territory under your own brand.

The .brand 2025 Circle, organized by the Afnic, brought together pioneers and experts in the field in October to shed light on the challenges and conditions for success in this new wave. Nathalie Dreyfus, founder of Dreyfus law firm, shared her expertise on the central role of intellectual property in preparing applications for a .brand. Firmly anchored in this context, the journey to apply for a .brand extension requires strategic foresight. This guide provides companies with a practical roadmap to understand why it matters, how to prepare, and what success factors to keep in mind ahead of the 2026 wave.

Consider a .brand extension?

Digital sovereignty and enhanced security

With a .brand extension, a company gains exclusive control over its top-level domain. It defines who can register sub-domains, how they’re managed, and under what security standards. Solidnames emphasises that one of the major benefits of a brand TLD is security – preventing phishing, cybersquatting and misuse of the domain namespace. A .brand is much more than an extension – it is a sovereign digital zone that promotes trust, emphasizes Nathalie Dreyfus.

Brand coherence, differentiation and innovation

A .brand extension allows all your digital services – website, extranet, apps, partner portals – to operate under a consistent naming architecture (e.g., service.company.brand). This unified digital footprint strengthens brand identity and helps you stand out. Solidnames points out that brands which have registered large numbers of domains under their .brand extension – for example top German and French firms – show how the model can work when used actively.

Strategic asset and portfolio optimisation

According to Solidnames, brand TLDs represent long-term digital assets. They provide flexibility: you can register names for marketing campaigns or future services without negotiation and fend off third-party registrations. In essence, a .brand is akin to owning your own digital real estate.

The investment: costs, returns and considerations

Applying for a .brand extension involves significant investment: registry setup, technical infrastructure, governance, ongoing maintenance. Solidnames notes the next round is expected in 2026, and preparation begins much earlier. Companies must therefore view this as a strategic investment, not just a marketing or IT project.

Key ROI levers:
– Strengthened trust
– Brand protection
– Ownership of your digital domain
– Potential cost savings in defensive registrations

Preparations ahead of the 2026 wave

Timeline and milestones

Solidnames explains that while the official application window opens around April 2026, the preceding Applicant Guidebook (AGB) of the ICANN will be published earlier, and the overall selection process may conclude late 2026-early 2027.

Internal preparation steps

– Assemble a multidisciplinary team: legal, brand management, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, marketing
– Conduct a feasibility study: technical, governance, cost-benefit
– Define concrete use-cases for the .brand extension: client-facing, partner access, internal services, campaigns
– Integrate your intellectual property strategy: protect your brand, secure trademarks across jurisdictions, align domain trademark strategy

Solidnames emphasises this alignment.

Domain naming policy and governance

Solidnames stresses the importance of a full naming charter: spelling rules, sub-domain conventions, renewal strategy, registration-abandonment policy. This should be part of the governance framework of your .brand registry.

Risks and pitfalls to avoid

– Under-use: many brand TLDs register few domains. Solidnames notes that only a small percentage exceed several hundred domain names.
– Governance and cost burden: the registry must be operated with robust rules, otherwise risk to brand credibility.
– Lack of strategic vision: without clear use-cases and measurement, the .brand might remain a symbolic asset rather than a performance lever.
– Regulatory process uncertainty: the timeline, rules and costs may evolve. Early preparation must factor in flexibility.

For Nathalie Dreyfus, the success of a brand depends on consistency between legal, technical, and marketing perspectives.

Keys to success

  1. Clear strategic objective: define what the .brand is for and who will benefit from it
  2. Active use-case roadmap: show how domain names under the extension will be used – not just registered
  3. Governance clarity: process, roles, naming policy, renewal and abandonment rules
  4. Measurement plan: metrics on traffic, trust, domain utilization, cost versus benefit
  5. Strong alignment with brand IP strategy: ensure the extension supports your brand identity and legal protection
  6. Start early: even though the application window is later, the groundwork must begin well in advance

Dreyfus law firm role

Dreyfus law firm has been helping companies protect and enhance their intangible assets for over 20 years. Our team helps trademark owners to:

– Assess the relevance of a .brand for their digital strategy
– Compile a complete ICANN application
– Define governance and registration policy
– Secure the trademark and subdomains

Conclusion

The next wave of brand TLDs offers companies a rare window to convert their domain strategy into a true strategic asset. By securing a .brand extension, you can reinforce brand identity, enhance trust, control your digital territory and innovate in naming. But the window for action is limited: preparation must begin now.

Solidnames analysis underscores the fact that those who treat a .brand as a long-term governance, brand and digital strategy will derive the greatest value. The .brand is the new frontier of branding – it transforms the domain name into a strategic asset, concludes Nathalie Dreyfus.

FAQ

What is a .brand (brand TLD)?
A .brand is a top-level domain reserved exclusively for a company’s trademark. It allows that company to manage the namespace, register sub-domains, and build a unique digital identity.

What does it cost to apply for a .brand?
The costs are approximately USD 200,000, and they include the application, registry ICANN fees, setup of infrastructure, governance, ongoing operations. This is a long-term investment.

When can I apply for a .brand?
The anticipated timeframe is around April 2026 for opening the application window, with substantial preparation required in 2025.

Read More

Domain Names and New gTLDs: Prepare Your Business for the Next ICANN Round

Introduction

In today’s digital economy, a domain name is far more than a simple web address – it is a strategic business asset. It defines a company’s online identity, drives visibility, and secures customer trust.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has announced that a new round of generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) will be launched in the coming years. With the recent designation of dispute resolution providers for this next round, the process is accelerating – and businesses must start preparing now.

Dreyfus, a leading law firm specializing in intellectual property and digital strategy, provides full support in domain name management, including assistance in preparing and filing new gTLD applications with ICANN.

Why Domain Names Are Strategic Business Assets

Domain names play a central role in digital strategy:

  • They define a company’s digital identity.
  • They safeguard brands against cybersquatting and misuse.
  • They enhance visibility and credibility worldwide.
  • They build customer trust and protect corporate reputation.

Example: A banking institution that loses control of a key domain name exposes itself to phishing risks, financial loss, and severe damage to brand reputation.

New gTLDs: A Unique Opportunity for Brands

ICANN’s new gTLD program aims to expand and diversify the Internet space by allowing organizations to obtain new extensions such as .shop, .bank, or even proprietary .brand domains.

Lessons from the Previous Round

In the first round launched in 2012:

  • Nearly 1,930 applications were submitted.
  • Over 600 .brand domains were delegated, enabling global companies to control their own extensions.
  • Key sectors such as luxury, finance, and technology secured strategic gTLDs.

Strategic Benefits

  • Brand empowerment: owning a .brand creates a powerful marketing tool.
  • Enhanced cybersecurity: full control of the namespace reduces phishing and fraud.
  • Operational flexibility: simplified management of subdomains under a proprietary extension.
  • Competitive edge: stronger visibility and differentiation in crowded markets.

The Risks of Inaction

Failing to prepare for the next gTLD round can result in:

  • Loss of strategic extensions to competitors.
  • Brand misuse and cybersquatting by malicious actors.
  • Costly disputes (UDRP, URS, national ADR procedures).
  • Reduced online visibility compared to proactive competitors.

Real-world example: several companies that did not anticipate the 2012 round had to buy back domains at exorbitant prices, sometimes exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars.

How to Prepare for the Next ICANN Round

A Practical Checklist

  1. Map your critical domains: identify domains linked to your trademarks, products, and markets.
  2. Define your strategy: offensive (filing a .brand) or defensive (securing key generic extensions).
  3. Allocate budget and resources: ICANN fees, technical costs, legal support.
  4. Monitor ICANN developments: stay ahead of rule updates and timelines.
  5. Build a compliant application: legal, technical, and financial readiness.

Case Studies

  • Global luxury group: applied for a .brand to secure all digital assets under a single trusted namespace.
  • Industrial mid-size company: adopted a defensive strategy by protecting its trademarks in strategic generic extensions (.tech, .industry).
  • Tech start-up: focused on monitoring and successfully recovered a hijacked domain via a UDRP proceeding.

Dreyfus’ End-to-End Support for gTLD Applications

Applying for a gTLD is a complex process requiring legal, technical, and financial expertise. Dreyfus offers comprehensive assistance at every stage:

  • Portfolio audit: identifying risks and opportunities.
  • Strategic advice: determining whether to pursue a .brand application or adopt a defensive approach.
  • Legal assistance: preparing and submitting ICANN applications, ensuring compliance with contractual obligations.
  • Operational management: coordinating with technical providers and liaising with ICANN.
  • Continuous monitoring: implementing surveillance tools to prevent misuse and anticipate disputes.

Why Choose Dreyfus?

  • 20+ years of expertise in intellectual property and domain names.
  • Active involvement in international organizations (ICANN, INTA).
  • International recognition in global rankings (IP Stars, Top 250 Women in IP, etc.).
  • A multidisciplinary team combining law, technology, and digital strategy.

Future Trends: The Impact of New gTLDs

  • Cybersecurity: .brand domains will significantly reduce phishing and fake websites.
  • Sectoral growth: industries such as healthcare, finance, and luxury are expected to adopt gTLDs aggressively.
  • Digital transformation: gTLDs will interact with AI, blockchain, and Web3, shaping future digital identities.

FAQ – New gTLDs and Domain Name Strategy

What is a gTLD?
A generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) is an extension such as .com, .shop, or .brand.

Why should I apply for a gTLD?
To strengthen your brand’s online identity, secure your assets, and gain full control over your namespace.

What is the timeline?
ICANN is preparing the next round; the timeline is expected to be announced soon. Businesses must start preparing their applications in advance.

How much does it cost?
The cost includes ICANN application fees, technical provider expenses, and legal advisory services.

What if I don’t apply for a gTLD?
You can still protect your brand with a defensive strategy and enforce your rights through UDRP, URS, or national ADR mechanisms.

Conclusion: Anticipate Your Domain Strategy Now

Domain names are no longer just online addresses – they are long-term strategic assets. The upcoming ICANN gTLD round presents a unique opportunity for forward-thinking companies.

By partnering with Dreyfus, you gain access to international expertise and full-service support to prepare, file, and protect your gTLD applications.

Contact our team today to schedule a portfolio audit and start building your gTLD strategy.

Read More

Nathalie Dreyfus, International Expert in Domain Name Disputes, to Speak at Domain Summit Europe – London 2025

In today’s digital economy, domain names are at the heart of corporate strategies. With the growing number of disputes, the rise of cybersquatting, and new challenges linked to cybersecurity, e-commerce and emerging technologies, trusted expertise has become indispensable.

At the Domain Summit Europe – London 2025, held from 1 to 3 September 2025 at the Business Design Centre, London, Nathalie Dreyfus, French Intellectual Property Attorney and founder of Dreyfus, will share her insights on the latest developments and strategies for protecting and defending digital assets worldwide.

A leading authority in domain name disputes

Recognized among the Top 250 Women in IP and consistently ranked by WTR 1000, IP Stars and Legal 500, Nathalie Dreyfus is one of the most prominent figures in intellectual property.

For over two decades, she has advised companies and institutions in more than 60 countries, helping them protect and enhance their intangible assets — particularly domain names, which have become strategic assets in their own right.

As a frequent conference speaker, trainer, and panelist for international institutions, she regularly addresses cutting-edge issues such as cybersecurity, blockchain, new domain extensions, and global brand enforcement strategies.

Why domain names are critical for businesses today

A domain name is no longer just an internet address. It represents:

  • An economic asset: it directly impacts visibility, credibility, and brand reputation.
  • A legal issue: cybersquatting, impersonation, and counterfeiting make disputes inevitable.
  • An international challenge: businesses expanding online must anticipate risks on a global scale.
  • A cybersecurity concern: domain names are prime targets for fraud and digital attacks.

In this context, insights from experts like Nathalie Dreyfus are essential to guide professionals on best practices for managing and defending domain portfolios.

Speaking at the Domain Summit Europe – London 2025

The Domain Summit Europe is a must-attend event for registrars, registries, investors, legal professionals, branding and SEO experts, startups, and digital entrepreneurs.

At this year’s edition, Nathalie Dreyfus will address the topic:

“Domain Names: Latest Developments and Strategic Insights to Anticipate Disputes and Strengthen Global Digital Presence.”

Her presentation will cover:

  • Recent developments on domain extensions and their impact on brand owners,
  • Effective mechanisms for resolving domain disputes,
  • Proactive management strategies to prevent litigation,
  • The intersection between trademarks and domain names in today’s digital economy.

Dreyfus: international reach and expertise

Founded by Nathalie Dreyfus, the Paris-based firm supports clients across Europe, the United States, Asia, and the Middle East. Its services include:

  • Trademark filing and portfolio management,
  • Domain name monitoring and enforcement,
  • Online anti-counterfeiting and cybersquatting litigation,
  • Strategic advice on emerging technologies.

This international reach allows the firm to deliver tailored and proactive strategies to meet today’s digital challenges.

Video presentation

On the occasion of the conference, we invite you to watch Nathalie Dreyfus’s video presentation.

Conclusion

The participation of Nathalie Dreyfus in the Domain Summit Europe – London 2025 highlights the growing importance of domain names as key intangible assets.
Her contribution will provide valuable insights for companies and legal professionals seeking to anticipate risks, strengthen digital strategies, and secure their global presence online.

📅 Dates: 1–3 September 2025 (main program on 2–3 September)
📍 Venue: Business Design Centre, 52 Upper St, London, UK
🔗 Official site: https://london25.domainsummit.com/

Read More

Complete guide 2025: Domain name disputes – UDRP procedure, SYRELI and international alternatives

Introduction to domain name disputes

In 2025, with over 370 million domain names registered worldwide and continuous growth in e-commerce, domain name disputes represent a major challenge for businesses, brands, and institutions. A hijacked domain name can result in a 15-25% loss in revenue according to a WIPO study.

Dispute resolution mechanisms vary by extension: while the UDRP procedure (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) applies to generic domains (.com, .net, .org), each national registry develops its own solutions, such as SYRELI for .fr, INDRP for .in, or specific procedures for Chinese .cn domains.

Why is this article essential?

This comprehensive guide will enable you to:

  • Understand different dispute resolution procedures
  • Choose the optimal strategy according to your situation
  • Estimate costs and timeframes for each procedure
  • Discover recent case law and 2024-2025 trends
  • Implement effective preventive protection

What is a domain name dispute?

Legal definition

A domain name dispute occurs when a third party registers a domain name that:

  1. Infringes on prior rights of a trademark holder
  2. Creates confusion in the public’s mind
  3. Diverts legitimate traffic to competing or malicious sites
  4. Harms the reputation of the brand or company

The 7 most common types of disputes

  1. Cybersquatting (domain name warehousing)

  • Definition: Speculative registration of famous domain names
  • Objective: Resale at high prices to the legitimate holder
  • Example: apple-store.com registered by a third party to be resold to Apple
  1. Typosquatting (typographical hijacking)

  • Definition: Registration of common misspelled variants
  • Examples: amazone.com, gooogle.com, facebok.com
  • Impact: Diverts 3-8% of traffic according to studies
  1. Domain slamming (domain name scam)

  • Technique: Sending false renewal invoices
  • Trap: The holder believes they’re renewing but transfers to another registrar
  • Prevalence: +45% in 2024 according to ICANN
  1. Reverse domain name hijacking

  • Definition: Abusive recovery attempt by the complainant
  • Sanction: Adverse decision and possible damages
  • Criteria: Manifest bad faith by the applicant
  1. Commercial parasitism

  • Method: Using the name to redirect to competition
  • Damage: Direct loss of customers and revenue
  • Affected sectors: E-commerce, services, luxury
  1. Reputation attack (gripe sites)

  • Objective: Criticize or denigrate a brand
  • Forms: [brand]sucks.com, [brand]complaints.org
  • Legal limits: Protection by freedom of expression in some cases
  1. Phishing and fraud

  • Danger: Identity theft and data theft
  • Techniques: Similar names to deceive users
  • Issues: Computer security and consumer protection

UDRP procedure: international standard for gTLDs

History and evolution of UDRP

The UDRP procedure was created in 1999 by ICANN to address the explosion of domain name disputes. Since its creation:

  • Over 80,000 procedures have been initiated
  • Average success rate: 85% for complainants
  • Extensions covered: All gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, etc.)
  • Approved centers: WIPO, Forum, ADNDRC, CAC, CNNIC

Detailed admissibility criteria

The complainant must demonstrate cumulatively three conditions:

  1. Identity or confusing similarity

Tests applied by experts:

  • Visual test: Graphic comparison of signs
  • Phonetic test: Similar pronunciation
  • Conceptual test: Evocation of the same idea
  • Extension consideration: Generally ignored in analysis

Jurisprudential examples:

✅ microsoft.com vs MICROSOFT trademark: perfect identity
✅ coca-cola.net vs COCA-COLA trademark: hyphen not determinant
❌ apple-trees.com vs APPLE trademark: significant addition modifying meaning

  1. Absence of rights or legitimate interests

Evaluation criteria:

  • Priority of registration compared to trademark rights
  • Legitimate commercial use of the domain name
  • Own notoriety of the holder under this name
  • Fair non-commercial use (criticism, parody, information)

Accepted defense means:

  • Prior good faith commercial exploitation
  • Family name or first name of the holder
  • Use for criticism (with limitations)
  • Documented legitimate commercial project
  1. Registration and use in bad faith

Bad faith indicators (non-exhaustive list):

At registration:

  • Obvious knowledge of the trademark
  • Registration of multiple variants
  • History of cybersquatting by the holder
  • Immediate buyback request

During use:

  • Attempt to sell to trademark holder
  • Direct unfair competition
  • Phishing or malicious site
  • Redirection to inappropriate content
  • Advertising parking exploiting the trademark

Detailed UDRP procedure process

Phase 1: Preparation and filing (Duration: Variable)

  1. Mandatory preliminary analysis
  • Verification of trademark rights
  • Prior art search
  • Analysis of domain name usage
  • Success probability assessment
  1. Case file constitution
  • Detailed complaint (generally 10-30 pages)
  • Proof of trademark rights
  • Elements demonstrating bad faith
  • Certified translations if necessary
  1. Choice of center and language
  • WIPO: 68% of procedures, recognized expertise
  • Forum: 28% of procedures, speed
  • ADNDRC: Asia-Pacific specialist
  • Language: Agreement between parties, or registration contract language

Phase 2: Administrative review (3-5 days)

  • Verification of file completeness
  • Payment of fees (1,500 USD for single expert WIPO) plus variable counsel fees depending on case complexity
  • Notification to respondent by email and mail
  • Publication on center’s website

Phase 3: Respondent’s response (20 days)

Common defense strategies:

  • Challenging complainant’s rights
  • Demonstrating legitimate interest
  • Proof of good faith
  • “Reverse domain name hijacking” exception

Phase 4: Expert appointment (5 days)

UDRP expert profiles:

  • Lawyers specialized in intellectual property
  • International experience required
  • Mandatory continuing education
  • Certified independence and impartiality

Phase 5: Instruction and decision (14 days)

  • Examination of evidence and arguments
  • Possibility of additional information
  • Legally motivated decision
  • Publication of decision

UDRP statistics 2024

Indicator Value 2023-2024 evolution
Procedures initiated 6,247 +12%
Complainant success rate 87.3% +2.1%
Average duration 52 days -3 days
Most litigious extensions .com (78%), .net (9%), .org (6%) Stable

SYRELI: the French solution for .fr domains

Presentation of the French system

AFNIC (French Association for Internet Naming in Cooperation) manages the extensions .fr, .re, .pm, .yt, .tf, .wf. Since 2011, it offers two alternative procedures:

  1. SYRELI: Internet dispute extrajudicial resolution system
  2. PARL Expert: Online rapid arbitration procedure

SYRELI: detailed procedure

Filing conditions

The complainant must demonstrate that the domain name:

  • Infringes on their rights (trademark, trade name, corporate name)
  • Is registered or used illegally or abusively

Differences with UDRP:

  • No explicit bad faith requirement, application of French law broader than UDRP
  • Broader notion of “abusive use”
  • Consideration of French law

SYRELI advantages

  1. Exceptional speed
  • Average timeframe: 32 days
  • Record: 18 days for simple cases
  • 100% dematerialized procedure
  1. Affordable cost
  • Free for respondent
  • 250 EUR excl. tax fee for applicant (2025 rate) + variable counsel fees depending on case complexity
  • No hidden or additional fees
  1. French expertise
  • Experts in French and European law
  • Knowledge of French market
  • Decisions in French
  1. Procedural flexibility
  • Possibility of prior mediation
  • Exchanges in French only
  • Adaptation to local specificities

SYRELI statistics 2024

Metric Value Comment
Procedures processed 187 +23% vs 2023
Applicant success rate 91% Historical record
Average timeframe 32 days -4 days vs 2023
Main sectors E-commerce (34%), Services (28%), Industry (18%)

PARL Expert: the WIPO alternative

Specificities

  • Organized by: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
  • Experts: Specialized international panel
  • Language: French or English
  • Cost: 1,500 euros in fees (single expert), variable counsel fees should be budgeted depending on case complexity

When to choose PARL Expert?

  • Complex disputes requiring international expertise
  • Important economic stakes (> 100k€)
  • Desired jurisprudential precedent
  • International parties

Country-specific procedures and extensions

🇷🇺 Russian Federation (.ru, .рф)

2025 regulatory context

Since international sanctions in 2022, the Russian domain name system has evolved:

  • Registry: Coordination Center for TLD RU
  • Procedures: Private arbitration or Russian courts
  • Constraints: Access limitations for foreign companies

Resolution mechanisms

  1. RU-CENTER arbitration
  • Timeframe: 3-6 months
  • Language: Russian mandatory
  • Success rate: 65% (2024)
  1. Judicial procedure
  • Competent courts: Moscow or respondent’s headquarters
  • Timeframe: 6-18 months
  • High cost with mandatory local representation

Legal specificities

  • Applicable law: Russian Civil Code
  • Evidence: Certified translation mandatory
  • Enforcement: Complexity with current sanctions

🇨🇳 People’s Republic of China (.cn, .中国)

CNNIC system and procedures

Registry: China Internet Network Information Center Available procedures:

  1. CNNIC Policy (UDRP-inspired)
  2. CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission)
  3. Beijing Arbitration Commission

CNNIC domain name dispute resolution policy

Criteria (identical to UDRP):

  • Identity/similarity with trademark
  • Absence of legitimate rights
  • Registration/use in bad faith

Chinese specificities:

  • Enhanced consideration of registered Chinese trademarks
  • Protection of Chinese geographical names
  • Mandatory local expertise for certain sectors

It is also possible to act through the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

Approved arbitration centers

  1. Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (ADNDRC)
  • Timeframe: 45-60 days
  • Languages: Chinese, English
  • Success rate: 89% (2024)
  1. CIETAC
  • More traditional, longer procedures
  • Recognized commercial expertise
  • Higher cost

Notable 2024 case law

  • Louis Vuitton vs malletlouis.cn: Transfer granted
  • BMW vs bmw-parts.cn: Rejection for legitimate spare parts use
  • McDonald’s vs 麦当.cn: Enhanced protection for Chinese characters

🇮🇳 India (.in, .भारत)

INDRP: IN domain name dispute resolution policy

Authority: National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) Creation: 2005, revised in 2021

INDRP criteria (adapted to Indian context)

  1. Abusive registration: Broader notion than UDRP bad faith
  2. Prior rights: Indian trademarks privileged
  3. Legitimate use: Consideration of local commercial traditions

Procedural specificities

Approved centers:

  • NIXI Panel: Indian and international experts
  • WIPO India: Local WIPO branch
  • CAM India: Arbitration and Mediation Center

Characteristics:

  • Timeframe: 45-75 days
  • Languages: English, Hindi
  • Success rate: 82% (2024)

Case law trends

  • Increased protection for Bollywood trademarks
  • Recognition of Indian family names
  • IT sector: Enhanced legitimate defenses

🇩🇪 Germany (.de)

DENIC and amicable resolution

Registry: DENIC eG Philosophy: Favor amicable solutions

Available procedures

  1. DENIC Konfliktlösung (conflict resolution)
  • Free, based on good will
  • Pure mediation without binding power. Otherwise, action before German courts is necessary
  • Resolution rate: 45%
  1. DIS arbitration (Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit)
  • Formal paid procedure
  • Timeframe: 3-6 months
  1. German courts
  • Competence of Landgerichten
  • Procedure: 6-18 months
  • Technical expertise required

🇧🇷 Brazil (.br)

NIC.br and SACI procedure

System: SACI (Sistema de Solução de Conflitos de Internet) Managed by: Centro de Solução de Conflitos de Internet

SACI characteristics

  • Total free for all parties
  • Mandatory prior mediation
  • Arbitration if mediation fails
  • Overall timeframe: 60-90 days

Specific criteria

  • Application of Brazilian law
  • Enhanced protection for local trademarks
  • Consideration of unregistered prior use

Practical guide: how to choose your procedure

Decision tree for choosing optimal procedure

  1. Extension identification

Disputed domain name extension

├── gTLD (.com, .net, .org, .info, etc.) → UDRP

├── .fr, .re, .pm, .yt, .tf, .wf → SYRELI or PARL Expert

├── ccTLD with dedicated procedure (.cn, .in, .ru, etc.) → Local procedure

└── ccTLD without procedure → National courts

  1. Choice criteria between procedures

For French extensions (.fr):

  • SYRELI if: Simple case, limited budget, speed priority
  • PARL Expert if: Complex case, important stakes, desired precedent

For gTLD with center choice:

  • WIPO: Maximum expertise, complex cases
  • Forum: Speed, standard cases
  • ADNDRC: Disputes involving Asia

Multi-criteria decision matrix

Criterion Weight UDRP/WIPO SYRELI Courts INDRP
Speed 25% 8/10 10/10 3/10 7/10
Cost 20% 6/10 9/10 4/10 8/10
Expertise 20% 10/10 8/10 9/10 7/10
International recognition 15% 10/10 6/10 8/10 5/10
Success rate 10% 9/10 9/10 7/10 8/10
Procedural simplicity 10% 8/10 9/10 5/10 8/10

Practical cases and recommendations

Case 1: French startup victim of cybersquatting on .com

Situation: brand-startup.com registered by third party Recommendation: UDRP via WIPO Justification: .com extension, recognized procedure, acceptable timeframe

Case 2: SME with name.fr hijacked

Situation: Competitor uses similar name in .fr Recommendation: SYRELI Justification: Speed, cost, French expertise

Case 3: International group with multiple extensions

Situation: Coordinated cybersquatting .com/.cn/.in Recommendation: Combined UDRP + local procedures strategy Justification: Global approach, local expertise needed


Detailed comparative timeframes

Detailed timeframes by phase

UDRP (total timeframe: 45-65 days)

Preparatory phase (variable)

├── Analysis and counsel: 1-2 weeks

├── File constitution: 1-3 weeks

└── Filing and verification: 3-5 days

 

Contradictory phase (40 fixed days)

├── Respondent notification: 3 days

├── Response deadline: 20 days

├── Expert appointment: 5 days

├── Possible rejoinder: 5 days

└── Decision: 14 days

 

SYRELI (total timeframe: 20-45 days)

Accelerated processing

├── Filing and verification: 2-3 days

├── Notification: 2-3 days

├── Respondent response: 15 days

└── Decision: 10-15 days

ROI and cost/benefit analysis

Return on investment calculation

Positive factors:

  • Recovery of diverted traffic
  • Reputation protection
  • Avoidance of judicial costs
  • Resolution speed

Financial estimation:

  • Monthly revenue loss (average): 5,000-50,000 EUR
  • Extrajudicial procedure cost: 2,000-10,000 EUR
  • Judicial procedure cost: 15,000-100,000 EUR
  • Average extrajudicial procedure ROI: 300-500%

Case law and case studies 2024-2025

Major jurisprudential developments

  1. Artificial intelligence and domain names

Trend: Multiplication of AI-related disputes Emblematic case: openai-gpt.com vs OpenAI Inc.

  • Decision: Transfer granted (UDRP D2024-0234)
  • Grounds: Commercial exploitation of reputation
  • Impact: Extended protection to technological terms
  1. Metaverse and Web3

Problem: Domain names linked to cryptocurrencies Example: ethereum-wallet.org vs Ethereum Foundation

  • Complexity: Unregistered trademarks in some countries
  • Solution: Proof of international notoriety
  • Teaching: Necessary anticipation for tech brands
  1. Evolution of bad faith criteria

New recognized indicators:

  • Use of misleading SSL certificates
  • Exploitation of mobile typing errors
  • Creation of AI-generated content imitating the brand
  • Paid referencing on the brand name

Case analysis by business sector

Luxury sector

Louis Vuitton vs lvbags-outlet.com (UDRP D2024-1156)

  • Context: Counterfeiting site
  • Defense: Authorized reseller (false)
  • Decision: Transfer + damages
  • Lesson: Enhanced surveillance necessary

Chanel vs chanelperfumes.net (SYRELI 2024-FR-0089)

  • Particularity: French respondent
  • Defense argument: Generic name “perfumes”
  • Decision: Transfer (famous trademark prevails)
  • Timeframe: 23-day record

Technology sector

Microsoft vs microsoft-teams-download.org

  • Problem: Malware distribution
  • Urgency: Interim injunction obtained
  • Procedure: UDRP + criminal action
  • Result: Transfer + prosecution

E-commerce and marketplaces

Amazon vs amazon-prime-deals.com

  • Technique: Disguised affiliation
  • Difficulty: Proving lack of authorization
  • Solution: Production of affiliation contracts
  • Outcome: Transfer granted

Remarkable decisions by jurisdiction

WIPO 2024 decisions

Top 3 most cited decisions:

  1. Nike Inc. vs sportswear-nike.online (D2024-0567)
    • Innovation: Social media consideration
    • Impact: Broadening of bad faith notion
  2. Airbnb vs airbnb-stays.travel (D2024-0789)
    • Question: .travel extension and legitimacy
    • Answer: Extension doesn’t automatically confer legitimacy
  3. Tesla vs tesla-autopilot.ai (D2024-0912)
    • Issue: Technical term vs trademark
    • Teaching: Commercial context determining

SYRELI developments

2024 qualitative statistics:

  • 91% success for applicants (record)
  • 32 days average timeframe (-4 days)
  • Growing sectors: Health (+67%), FinTech (+45%)

Landmark decision: sante-covid.fr

  • Context: Medical disinformation site
  • Applicant: Ministry of Health
  • Defense: Freedom of expression
  • Decision: Transfer (public order priority)
  • Timeframe: 18 days (emergency procedure)

Reverse domain name hijacking: sanctioned cases

Definition and sanctions

Reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) sanctions abusive complainants who:

  • Use UDRP procedure improperly
  • Have no legitimate rights to the name
  • Act knowingly

Applied sanctions:

  • Mention in decision
  • Damages in certain jurisdictions
  • Blacklisting by centers

Recent sanctioned cases

Facebook vs face-book.com (D2024-0445)

  • Error: Name registered before Facebook creation
  • Sanction: RDNH established
  • Cost: 50,000 USD in damages

Apple vs apple-trees.org (D2024-0678)

  • Context: Legitimate gardening site
  • Abuse: Portfolio expansion attempt
  • Result: RDNH + respondent’s attorney fees

Preventive protection strategies

Optimal domain name portfolio

  1. Essential extensions by company type

French local SME:

  • .fr (mandatory)
  • .com (recommended)
  • .eu (if European activity)

International company:

  • .com, .net, .org (classic triptych)
  • ccTLD of strategic markets (.de, .uk, .cn, .in)
  • New sectoral gTLD (.tech, .shop, .finance)

Luxury brand:

  • Maximum protection: 50+ extensions
  • Extended surveillance: variations and typos
  • Premium extensions: .luxury, .fashion, .style
  1. Defensive naming strategies

Spelling variations:

  • Hyphen: brand-name.com, brandname.com
  • Plurals: brands.com, brand.com
  • Abbreviations: br-and.com, brnd.com

Typosquatting protection:

  • Adjacent characters: nrand.com, bramd.com
  • Omissions: brand.com, brnd.com
  • Doubles: bbrand.com, brandd.com

Optimal number calculation:

Risk score = (Reputation × Digital revenue × Sensitive sector) / 1000

Number of domains = Score × 15 + priority extensions

Automated surveillance and monitoring

  1. Recommended monitoring tools

Professional solutions:

IPzen (Harbor Technologies)

  • Coverage: 1000+ extensions
  • Alerts: Real-time
  • Cost: 500-1500 EUR/year/brand
  • Advantages: Legal security, limits risk of abusive actions, can also manage UDRP and other alternative dispute resolution procedures
  1. Setting up effective monitoring

Optimal configuration:

  • Main keywords: Exact trademark
  • Variations: +50 typographical variants
  • Extensions: Priority + extended surveillance
  • Frequency: Daily for sensitive brands

Alert processing workflow:

Alert detected

├── Automatic analysis (AI/rules)

├── Risk classification (High/Medium/Low)

├── Legal team notification

├── Action according to established procedure

└── Follow-up and monthly reporting

Contracts and preventive clauses

  1. Clauses in commercial contracts

Distributors and resellers:

Article X – Domain names

The distributor is prohibited from registering any domain name

incorporating the [BRAND] trademark without prior written

authorization from the grantor. In case of violation, the grantor

may require immediate transfer without compensation.

Employees and executives:

Article Y – Digital intellectual property

The employee undertakes not to register domain names

related to the company’s activity, except by express mission.

Any unauthorized registration will be considered a violation

of the duty of loyalty.

  1. Enhanced general terms of sale

Protection against wild affiliation:

  • Prohibition on using the name in domains
  • Obligation to declare promotional sites
  • Sanctions in case of violation

Rapid response plan

  1. Emergency procedures

Detection of new suspicious domain:

  • H+2: Verification and documentation
  • H+24: Strategy decision (negotiation/procedure)
  • D+3: Implementation of chosen action
  • D+7: First effectiveness assessment

Escalation according to risk:

  • Low risk: Amicable negotiation
  • Medium risk: Formal notice + procedure
  • High risk: Immediate procedure + injunction if necessary
  1. Dedicated team and responsibilities

Recommended composition:

  • IP lawyer: Strategic decision
  • Digital manager: Technical assessment
  • General management: Budget validation
  • External counsel: Procedural expertise

Complete FAQ – domain name disputes

General questions

Q1: What differentiates a domain name from a trademark?

A: A domain name is a technical address on the Internet, while a trademark is a distinctive sign protected by intellectual property law. Conflict arises when a domain name incorporates a trademark without authorization, creating confusion for consumers.

A trademark benefits from strong legal protection upon registration, while domain name registration only confers technical usage rights to this Internet address.

Q2: How long does it take to recover a domain name?

A: Timeframes vary by procedure:

  • SYRELI (.fr): 20-45 days on average
  • UDRP (gTLD): 45-65 days
  • National procedures: 60-120 days
  • Courts: 6-24 months

The speed record belongs to SYRELI with 18 days for a health emergency case in 2024.

Q3: Can I recover a domain name without having a registered trademark?

A: It’s very difficult but not impossible. You can rely on:

  • Trade name used previously
  • Prior corporate name
  • Copyright on the name
  • Notoriety acquired without registration

However, 90% of successful procedures rely on a registered trademark, which constitutes the strongest proof of your rights.

Q4: What to do if I receive a formal notice for my domain name?

A: Don’t panic and follow these steps:

  1. Analyze the legitimacy of the demand
  2. Verify your rights to the name (anteriority, legitimate use)
  3. Document your good faith (screenshots, usage proof)
  4. Consult a specialist before responding
  5. Negotiate if relevant or prepare your defense

Important: Never transfer the domain immediately under pressure.

Technical questions about procedures

Q5: What’s the difference between UDRP and SYRELI?

A:

Criterion UDRP SYRELI
Extensions gTLD (.com, .net, .org…) .fr and overseas territories
Cost (fee) 1,500 USD (WIPO) 250 EUR excl. tax
Timeframe 45-65 days 20-45 days
Language Primarily English French only
Criteria 3 strict cumulative conditions Rights infringement + abusive use
Recognition International France and francophone countries

Q6: Can I appeal a UDRP, SYRELI, or PARL Expert decision?

A:

  • UDRP: No appeal possible, but judicial action
  • SYRELI: No appeal, but judicial recourse possible
  • PARL Expert: No appeal, but judicial recourse possible

Judicial appeal suspends execution of transfer decision.

Q7: How to prove bad faith in a UDRP procedure?

A: Most effective bad faith indicators:

At registration:

  • Obvious knowledge of your trademark
  • Registration of multiple variations
  • Immediate buyback request
  • History of cybersquatting

During use:

  • Phishing site or direct competitor
  • Advertising parking exploiting your trademark
  • High-price sale attempt
  • Total absence of use (warehousing)

Evidence to constitute:

  • Time-stamped screenshots
  • Negotiation emails
  • Traffic analyses
  • Research on the holder

Q8: How much does a UDRP procedure really cost?

A: Typical total cost for a UDRP procedure:

Direct fees:

  • WIPO (1 expert): 1,500 USD
  • Forum (1 expert): 1,350 USD but there may be other fees depending on responses and suspensions

Indirect fees:

  • Attorney/counsel fees: 1,000-8,000 EUR
  • Translations: 500-2,000 EUR
  • Investigations: 500-2,000 EUR

Global budget: 3,000-12,000 EUR depending on case complexity

For an SME, SYRELI remains the most economical option: 250 EUR + 1,500-3,000 EUR in fees = total budget < 3,500 EUR.

Strategic questions

Q9: Should I negotiate or go directly to procedure?

A: Prior negotiation is recommended if:

  • The holder seems in good faith
  • Usage is not directly competitive
  • Buyback cost remains reasonable (< procedure cost)
  • Time is not critical

Go directly to procedure if:

  • Manifestly fraudulent usage
  • Extortion attempt
  • Direct competitor
  • Phishing/malware site

Statistic: 60% of negotiations succeed in < 30 days with an average cost of 900-5,000 EUR.

Q10: How to effectively protect my brand on the Internet?

A: 5-level protection strategy:

Level 1 – Basic protection:

  • Registration .com + .fr + target country extensions
  • Monthly automated surveillance
  • Clauses in commercial contracts

Level 2 – Enhanced protection:

  • +10 priority extensions
  • Main spelling variations
  • Weekly surveillance

Level 3 – Extended protection:

  • +30 sectoral extensions
  • Complete typosquatting protection
  • Daily surveillance + social networks

Level 4 – Maximum protection:

  • 100+ domain names
  • Advanced detection AI
  • Dedicated internal team

Annual budget indication:

  • Level 1: 1,000-3,000 EUR
  • Level 2: 5,000-15,000 EUR
  • Level 3: 15,000-50,000 EUR
  • Level 4: 50,000+ EUR

Q11: What to do in case of massive cybersquatting on my brand? A: Graduated response strategy:

Phase 1 – Assessment (1-2 weeks)

  • Complete inventory of infringing domains
  • Classification by risk level
  • Recovery cost evaluation

Phase 2 – Priority actions (1 month)

  • Procedures on high-risk domains
  • Negotiations on intermediate cases
  • Enhanced monitoring

Phase 3 – Systematic cleanup (3-6 months)

  • Grouped procedures
  • Legal action if necessary
  • Implementation of preventive protection

Total cost: 10,000-100,000 EUR depending on scope, but ROI generally > 300%.

Q12: How to know if my domain name has chances of being recovered? A: Quick self-assessment (scoring out of 100):

Prior rights (30 points max):

  • Identical registered trademark: 30 pts
  • Similar trademark: 20 pts
  • Prior trade name: 15 pts
  • No formal rights: 0 pt

Usage of the disputed domain (40 points max):

  • Direct competitor site: 40 pts
  • Brand advertising parking: 35 pts
  • Sale/negotiation: 30 pts
  • Generic unrelated site: 10 pts
  • No usage: 20 pts

Evidence of bad faith (30 points max):

  • Extortion attempt: 30 pts
  • Registration post-notoriety: 25 pts
  • Multiple similar domains: 20 pts
  • Masked/false contact: 15 pts

Results interpretation:

  • 80-100 points: Very good chances (>90%)
  • 60-79 points: Good chances (70-90%)
  • 40-59 points: Average chances (50-70%)
  • <40 points: Low chances (<50%)

Conclusion: Towards optimal digital protection

In 2025, domain name protection constitutes a major strategic issue for any organization with a digital presence. The constant evolution of extensions, the emergence of new forms of cybersquatting and the increasing complexity of the international legal landscape make a structured and preventive approach essential.

Key points to remember

  1. Diversity of solutions: Each extension has its specific mechanisms
  2. Effectiveness of extrajudicial procedures: 85-90% success rate
  3. Importance of speed: The earlier the action, the better the chances
  4. Positive ROI: Recovery procedures are generally profitable
  5. Essential prevention: Better to protect than to suffer

Dreyfus Law Firm expertise

With more than 20 years of experience in intellectual property and new technologies law, Dreyfus Law Firm assists its clients in:

  • Domain name portfolio audit
  • Personalized preventive protection strategies
  • UDRP, SYRELI, PAR Expert and international recovery procedures
  • Amicable negotiations and mediation
  • Automated monitoring and legal watch
  • Internal team training

Future developments to anticipate

2025-2026: Emerging trends

  • Generative AI and new types of counterfeiting
  • Metaverse and virtual brand protection
  • Blockchain and decentralized domain names
  • Reinforced European regulation (DSA/DMA)

Our commitment: Accompanying our clients through these changes for excellent digital protection.


Need help protecting your domain names?

Read More

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

Domain name monitoring remains a major issue

Veille noms de domainesWIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. D2022-0593, April 15th 2022, Photomaton v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Ehren Schaiberger

In the decision made on April 15th, 2022, Photomaton had its UDRP complaint rejected, that concerned a domain name of which it was previously a holder of.

This case is likely to attract a lot of attention as it illustrates the importance of regular monitoring of domain names and other industrial property rights that are subject to renewal.

The case is concerned with the domain name <photomaton.com>, which, according to the evidence, was held by the company Photomaton from the 16th of January 2015 until January 2020. The situation may seem far-fetched, but it appears that the Complainant did not renew the domain name on time. The Respondent, Mega Domains, is a domainer who registers and puts domain names up for sale. At the time of this case, it held more than 10,000 domain names.

Respondent became the owner of the <photomaton.com> domain name when it expired via a so-called “Drop Catching” system. The logic suggests that the registration was done properly and that the Respondent had nothing to worry about, however the rules of the UDRP procedure are a little more complex.

What about a domainer who registers a domain name with a third party’s trademark that is not registered in the country where the domainer is located?

Complainant argued that it was the owner of French, EU and international trademark “PHOTOMATON” as well as the domain names <photomaton.fr> and <photomaton.be>. Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP provides that a combination of three elements are required to be met in order to claim the transfer of a disputed domain name: the existence of Complainant’s prior right that is confusingly similar to the domain name, evidence of absence of a right or legitimate interest of the domain name’s current holder and evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the domain name by the current holder.

Obviously, the first condition left no room for doubt for the Expert: the name was identical to the “PHOTOMATON” trademarks held by Complainant, as the gTLD “.com” was not considered in this comparison.

The second condition, on the other hand, was subject to more detailed consideration. Complainant argued that it had not given permission to Respondent to register and use the domain name in question and that Respondent was not known by the domain name or any of its derivatives, nor did it own any trademarks relating to the domain name. The Respondent argued that the term “Photomaton” was a descriptive term that he could register and resell at his convenience.

The Expert, far from stopping at a biased parallel between the English term “photo booth” and the term “photomaton”, affirmed by referring to an INPI decision, stating that the term “photomaton” was not considered descriptive in both English and French. In support of his argument, he added that even if the term had become restrictive, the domain name must be used genuinely, or at least clearly intended for such use, in relation to the dictionary definition and not for the purpose of trading in the trademark rights of others. This was not the case here, as Respondent had offered the domain name for sale on the ‘Dan’ platform for 37,000 US dollars, a price set on the basis of the notoriety of the term.

The third condition was the most controversial and the one that led the Complaint to fail. Complainant claimed that its trademark was an invented word, deemed distinctive by INPI case law, and it is very famous, at least in France, where it has been used for over 100 years. It was therefore unlikely that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name without knowing the Complainant’s trademark.  However, Complainant had not provided any evidence of the use of its brand or its scope in the United States, where Respondent was located.

Meanwhile, Respondent claimed that it did not know Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent added that his business consisted of the registration and resale of domain names that he considered descriptive. Respondent also provided evidence of the registration of numerous names containing the word “photo” or ending in “on”.

The Panel reflecting on the facts, concluded that it was clear that Complainant did not abandon its trademark, even if it did not renew the domain name, therefore a subsequent purchaser could not use it in a way that would conflict with its trademark right. The complexity of the case lies in the fact that Respondent argued that more than 100,000 domain names expire every day and that to avoid potential disputes, the latter used keywords that are likely to be rejected for registration, which included many trademarks. However, Respondent claimed to be using the databases of the US Trademark Office, where the mark “PHOTOMATON” was not registered. The Panel responded by stating that by offering the brand for sale on a worldwide scale, based solely on a US database, did not seem adequate in light of the database provided by WIPO.

The Panel concluded that the Complainant’s name was not registered as a trademark highlighting two points: firstly, a Google search made at the time of the registration of the domain name by Respondent did not clearly show Complainant’s trademark, but the geographical points where the photo booths were installed. Secondly, the Expert considered that Respondent had nonetheless undertaken numerous endeavours to ensure that the disputed domain name was not the subject of a trademark right. The Panel noted that failure to use a worldwide trademark database might not be excused in the future.

This is an unforeseen decision, which demonstrates the extent to which management of a domain name portfolio remains a major issue for companies of all sizes. So far, the <photomaton.com> domain name is still for sale on the Dan.com website for 37,000 US dollars.

Read More

Legal Watch : THE UDRP PROCEDURE

CYBERSQUATTINGThe UDRP PROCEDURE is designed to deal with cases of abusive cybersquatting.

Since the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation and, more generally, when domain names are registered anonymously, it is often difficult to identify the enemy that we intend to strike.

The issue can be solved through filing a UDRP complaint. This is what happened to the US company Capital Distribution Consulting Inc. As the owner of the semi-figurative trademark Royal dragon superior vodka 5X distilled, the company filed a complaint against the anonymously registered domain name <royaldragonvodka.com>.

Once the procedure was initiated, the identity of the registrant was revealed. The latter was a certain Mr. X, who was an officer of Horizons Group (London) in the United Kingdom and the owner of the UK trademark Royal dragon vodka.

 

 

In fact, it turned out that both parties obtained their trademarks through a transfer carried out by Dragon Spirits Limited in Hong Kong, of which Mr. Bharwani was one of the shareholders.
This information gave rise to further exchanges between the parties, each accusing the other of having obtained the trademark unlawfully. In particular, the complainant argued that the transfer to the defendant had taken place after the liquidation of the transferee.

The facts reported in this decision are particularly complex and all-encompassing, which indicates that the UDRP is not the appropriate forum for this kind of litigation.
The expert reported that the complainant filed an additional response, which is not provided for in the Regulation, after the defendant’s response and then a second response 9 days later. This response contained 15 annexes, including a sales agreement, court orders, share transfers, a declaration relating to the liquidation procedure, etc.

The expert decided not to accept this response and consequently not to consider the defendant’s request to reply in case these submissions were accepted.
The expert pointed out that this case does not concern a simple case of cybersquatting but rather a competition matter, involving trademarks being registered around the world.

He noted that trademark rectification proceedings based on competition grounds have been granted or are still pending in different jurisdictions. Therefore, the domain name in question is fully in line with this broader dispute. The expert recalled that the Guiding Principles of the UDRP are not designed to settle all kinds of disputes that would have any link with domain names. On the contrary, the Guidelines establish an inexpensive and streamlined administrative procedure being limited to ‘abusive cybersquatting’ cases.
This decision serves as a reminder that it is essential to obtain as much information as possible about the disputed domain name that forms the subject of a procedure. For relatively old names such as <royaldragonvodka.com> being registered in 2011, valuable information can be found through consulting the Whois history of the domain name.

 

 

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. D2021-2871, Nov. 24, 2021, Capital Distribution Holding Inc. v. Hiro Bharwani, Horizons Group (London) Ltd.

Read More

LEGAL WATCH : THE NAME PARISTECH.ORG

The name < PARISTECH.ORG >, operated by Parisian entrepreneurs, would not infringe Paritech’s rights.

At the end of the year 2021, a surprising UDRP decision was issued. It concerned a complaint filed against the domain name < paristech.org > that was registered by an anonymous registrant in 2017. The complaint was filed by the French ParisTech Foundation («ParisTech») who is known for its higher education services primarily in the fields of science and technology,

ParisTech notably owns two French Paristech trademarks, registered in 1999 and 2010 and subsequently renewed, as well as the international trademark “Paris Institute of science and technology Paristech” registered in 2010 and renewed in 2020. It also owns the <paristech.fr> domain name, registered in 2004.
The disputed domain name was used to disseminate French articles on a variety of topics, most of which related to technology and innovation. Before filing a complaint, the complainant attempted to contact the registrant at the address mentioned on its website, but without success.

 

After the complaint had been filed, the defendant indicated that he was open to find an amicable agreement with the complainant. Although it led to the suspension of the proceedings, the negotiations – whereof the content has not been reported – were not successful. Consequently, the proceedings resumed. The defendant submitted a late response to the complaint, which the expert decided not to accept, based on the consideration that it would not have changed the outcome of the case anyway.
In his analysis, the expert acknowledges that the domain name is identical to the complainant’s prior Paristech trademarks.

However, as far as the legitimate interest is concerned, his position may seem unexpected since he decided not to rule on the matter.

He noted that the website included articles on various topics that mostly related to technology and innovation. The site incorporates a «Paris Tech» logo at the top of the page and at the bottom, a reference to the city of Paris and a postal code.

He noted that the «Paristech» website is managed by two Parisian entrepreneurs who want to keep track of technological developments.

The only method of contact is an email address. Nonetheless, the complainant demonstrated that this email address does not work.

The expert further noted that the legal notices only contained the contact details of the OVH host and that the contact details did not correspond to those provided by the registration office.
However, he noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the purpose of the defendant was to target the complainant’s trademark. The “Paris Tech” logo on the site is different from that of the complainant. In addition, the expert stated that the content presented on <paristech.org> and <paristech.fr> are different.

He explained that «Paristech» can easily be understood as “Paris Technology” referring to the content of the site.

Based on these facts, the expert considered that the complainant failed to prove the defendant’s bad faith and referred to his comments on this point.

He considered that the defendant could have known about the Paristech trademark when he registered the domain name since the complainant’s trademark appears to be known in France in connection with its research education services and that the website is operated by Parisian entrepreneurs, where the complainant is based.

Nevertheless, he noted that the site was non-commercial, relating to technology and innovation, and did not refer to the complainant’s field of activity, namely education.

Moreover, the expert noted that the complainant did not provide proof that the registrant had proposed the domain name for sale before the start of the proceedings, nor that he would have obtained a financial gain by making use of this domain name through taking advantage of the risk of confusion. Hence, the domain name registration does not constitute an abusive reproduction of third-party trademarks.

He therefore rejected the complaint, stating that the choice to hide his contact information on the Whois file and to provide on his website a contact email address that does not work is not sufficient to conclude bad faith registration.
This decision may seem surprising given the complainant’s reputation among the French speaking and international public.

The domain name is strictly identical to the earlier trademark and reproduces part of the complainant’s legal name. The website is operated in French. However, the complainant is located in France where it enjoys a certain reputation.

The legitimacy of the site may seem questionable since no legal notice is inserted and the contact address is false. The defendant does not claim trademark rights or a legal name «Paristech».
The website’s topics are similar to those covered by ParisTech. The fact of not drawing active income or not actively proposing the sale of the domain name does not mean that the defendant did not intend to target the complainant’s trademark. We note that as of December 30, 2021, the site is inactive.

By consulting the history of the Whois of the disputed domain name, we can see that on February 12, 2017, the name was held by Mr. X, ParisTech company. According to our research, the latter was the general manager of ParisTech. Subsequently, the name became anonymous. Therefore, there appears to be a very clear link between the complainant and this domain name.

Finally, although the articles promoted on the site do not focus on education, it could be argued that the dissemination of informative articles can be related to it.

It appears that the expert based his decision primarily on the lack of commercial intent in the use of the disputed domain name.

However, the expert noted that if the content of the website were to change in order to infringe the complainant’ rights, then the complainant would be free to pursue legal action.

 

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. D2021-2417, October 28, 2021, Paristech Foundation v. Domain Administrator d/b/a privacy.cloudns.net

 

Read More

Legal Watch: Two people file a complaint regarding the same domain name

When two people file a complaint regarding the same domain name, the domain name’s transfer isn’t necessarily granted to the trademark rights’ owner

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy specifies in point 4) a) that the relevant disputes involve those where a domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights”.

This is the case when the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith, when the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests and when the domain name registered by the domain name registrant is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”.

Recently, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center considered that, although the applicant had previous trademark rights, the transfer of the disputed domain name shall happen on behalf of the other complainants.

 

 

 

The complainants in this case were Victoria and David Beckham.

The first complainant, Victoria Beckham, a former member of the Spice Girls, is specialized in haute couture and commercialises clothes under her name on the website “www.victoriabeckham.com”. The trademark “VICTORIA BECKHAM” is notorious, especially in the United-Kingdom: it was designated as Designer Brand of the Year in 2011.

The second complainant is David Beckham, renowned for his soccer career, as well as for his professional collaborations with major brands.

He owns several trademarks, invoked in support of the complaint and in particular some registered in the United States “BECKHAM” No. 3342223, dated 20 November 2007, renewed, relating inter alia to clothing products and the trademark “BECKHAM” No. 4208454, dated 18 September 2021 in class 3, which includes perfumes. Thus, the trademarks cited in support of the complaint belong solely to him.

The Beckhams discovered the domain name <usbeckham.com> registered on 8 July 2020, after the registration of Mr Beckham’s trademarks. This domain name linked to a page selling clothing, handbags, shoes and accessories. The site was titled “BECKHAM® Official Online Boutique” and featured the header “BECKHAM” in a font similar to Victoria Beckham’s site. It also had a “Perfume” tab, which redirected to the <genewus.com> website, selling perfumes but also a range of swimwear bearing the name “Victoria Beck”.

Firstly, the expert observed that both complainants shared the same name BECKHAM, for which David Beckham had acquired trademark protection for perfumes and clothing. Hereby, the expert considered the consolidation of the complainants well-founded.
According to the expert the disputed domain name may generate a risk of confusion with the earlier trademarks as it incorporates the word BECKHAM.
Concerning the legitimate interest and the potential rights of the defendant, the complainants argue that they have not given any authorization to the defendant to use their name and that the latter held no rights on the sign “BECKHAM”.
The use of the domain name is confusing for products in competition with those of the complainants and have a title with the symbol ® implying that the respondent is the owner of the trademark “BECKHAM”. The term “Official” also suggests that the website is official. This demonstrates the respondent’s lack of good faith: the expert therefore considers that she has no right nor legitimate interest in the domain name.
Furthermore, with regard to the registration and use in bad faith, the expert considers that the applicants are very famous and that the defendant could not have been unaware of the applicants’ trademarks “BECKHAM”, given that she lived in London and in view of her interest in “high fashion” as mentioned on her website. Moreover, her name is not “Beckham”. However, this name has some significance in the world of high fashion through the applicants’ trademarks. The expert therefore considers that the defendant necessarily registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the complaint was accepted and the domain name was transferred to the first complainant, Victoria Beckham.

 

This ruling is interesting since most of the decision’s reasoning is based on Mr. Beckham’s trademarks. The trademarks in question were protected in particular for “clothing” and “perfumes”. Those same products are found on the disputed website.

A research reveals that there are several “VICTORIA BECKHAM” trademarks, but at first sight, they do not belong to Mrs. Beckham herself, but to her company. Although the company bears the same name, it was not a complainant in this litigation.

The consolidation of complainants makes it possible to consider that “2 become 1″ for the purposes of the complaint. Anyone of the complainants can obtain the disputed domain name whereas it is not decisive which one of them is mentioned as the actual trademark owner in the complaint.

Perhaps Victoria Beckham could have argued that she has common law rights regarding the name “BECKHAM”. However, these rights would have been in competition with those of her company.

(WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case n°D2021-1841, Victoria Beckham, David Beckham v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247653581/ Cynthia Panford)

 

See also…

Domain names

Read More

Metaverse: is it necessary to register specific trademarks for protection?

*Image generated by DALL-E 3, Microsoft Version

The metaverse -a parallel virtual world which is booming in the Web 3.0 era- has become an unavoidable topic. This fictional world will combine prospectively and simultaneously virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), blockchain, crypto-currencies, social networks, etc. Many companies are already planning to do business in this world following the company’s digital transition.

As a result, trademark applications covering products and services related to “digital virtual objects” have been multiplying since the end of 2021.

But how to effectively protect this new activity that calls for a whole new lexicon?

 

 

 

1.The metaverse, a new world for new ambitions?

In a few words, the metaverse can be defined as a fabricated virtual universe -mixing the words “meta” and “universe”, to designate a meta-universe in which social interactions would be extended and digitized. It seems to be directly inspired by the 1992 novel Snow Crash” (“Le Samourai virtuel” in French) by Neal Stephenson.

This parallel digital environment embodies a new way to explore innovative and ambitious projects from a different perspective, before they take concrete shape in the actual world.

As an example, Aglet created its own range of sneakers, the “TELGAs”, after launching it as a digital collection for online games. The collection is also available on the OpenSea platform, alongside brands such as Nike and Adidas, who have stepped up to virtual collections in the form of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs).

NFTs, whose transactions are mostly hosted on the Ethereum blockchain, are essential components of the metaverse. This digital asset category, which is distinct from crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin and Ether, allows for authentic and unforgeable certification of the ownership of one of these virtual digital objects offered for sale in the metaverse.

The metaverse follows on from social networks and will undoubtedly allow companies to establish a strong online presence, beyond the operation of a traditional website.

Whether the metaverse is a trend that will last and become anchored in our culture is uncertain, though many large companies have already taken the plunge.

Before venturing into the metaverse, it is necessary to register specific trademarks, adapted to the goods and services of the metaverse. This will ensure efficient protection against infringement and will enhance the value of the company’s brand assets.  In this respect, it is important to draft an appropriate wording for the trademark.

 

2.How to design an adequate and optimal protection?

When launching an activity into the metaverse, the definition of the goods and services should be careful considered as the crucial element of a trademark is its wording above all. The filing process for a trademark application with the INPI, EUIPO, or any other national industrial property office, will indeed guarantee, to some extent, a monopoly on goods and services determined. This will confer also a commercial value to the trademark, once it is registered by an industrial property office.

As a reminder, once a trademark application has been filed, it is impossible to add classes of goods and services and to add any additional good or service, nor to add goods or services. Only a modification in the sense of a restriction of the wording will be considered.

The most relevant classes, which will contribute to the wording, are classes 9 and 41.

Class 9 allows for NFT coverage, although the product may not be accepted as such. More explanatory wording will be required. For example, one can target “downloadable digital products, i.e. digital objects created using blockchain technology”. These goods can be of all kinds: clothing, works of art, etc.

Class 41 covers the components of entertainment. In this respect, MMORPGs, which are defined as interactive games, which by their nature and concordance are closely associated with the metaverse, could be covered in class 41.

When a virtual trademark is to be exploited through points of sale, services class 35 seems unavoidable in order to include, among other things, “retail store services for virtual goods”.

In a complementary vision, it will then be necessary to think of designating the corresponding goods in the classes that classically cover them.

 

3.Virtual trademarks registered in various sectors

In early February 2022, Pumpernickel Associates, LLC filed a trademark application for “PANERAVERSE” No. 97251535 with the USPTO. This filing, initiated for virtual food and beverage products, NFTs and the ability to purchase real products in the virtual world, demonstrates a definite willingness by the American company to deploy these outlets in the metaverse.

McDonald’s has also filed trademark applications (No. 97253179; No. 97253170; No. 97253159) for “the operation of a virtual restaurant offering real and virtual products” and for “the operating a virtual restaurant online featuring home delivery”. In addition, the U.S. fast food chain also plans to obtain a trademark for “on-line actual and virtual concerts and other virtual events” and other entertainment services for a virtual McCafe (No. 97253767; No. 97253361; No. 97253336).

These are not the only trademark applications filed at this time; Facebook and Nike pioneered this trend, followed by luxury, textile, cosmetics and perfume brands. L’Oréal, for example, has filed several registration applications for perfume brands from its portfolio, in their digital version, with the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI)

 

4.Conceptual considerations

In light of this unprecedented craze around the metaverse, one might wonder whether these immaterial goods, whose projected use is exclusively intended for virtual exploitation, should not come under a new particular category of products, not defined to date under the Nice Classification.

The addition of an ad hoc class dedicated to these virtual goods and services seems complex insofar as many of them could overlap with already existing products and services. The list could be very long.

In any case, drafting a trademark for the metaverse requires a meticulous definition of the goods and services concerned.

The Nice Classification, despite the successive trademark filings made since November 2021, does not include for the moment, in its explanatory notes or product suggestions, any reference to goods and/or services closely related to the metaverse or NFTs. Perhaps it will do so shortly in view of the developments encountered.

What will be the boundaries between the metaverse and the actual world? The question is a structuring one for trademark law and competition law. The European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager and the president of the US antitrust authority, Lina Khan, are wondering about “the right time to put in place competition rules in this emerging sector”.

Dreyfus accompany you in the protection of your brands in the metaverse era and to draft with you a wording of goods and services adapted to your activity.

 

 

See also…

 

How to protect your brands in the digital era?

Why is it necessary to register a trademark?

United States: what are the options to protect a trademark?

Read More

Is it possible to invoke a trademark that is not protected in the defendant’s country?

The trademark invoked by the applicant does not necessarily have to be protected in the country of the respondent

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISIONVente-privee.com v. 郑碧莲 (Zheng Bi Lian)Case No. DCN2021-0004

In order for a UDRP complaint to succeed, it is necessary to prove a trademark right similar or identical to the domain name, generating a risk of confusion. Then, it must be established that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and finally, it must be shown that the respondent has registered and used the name in bad faith.

 

 

 

In order to establish this bad faith, it is essential to show that the respondent has prior knowledge of the applicant’s rights and that the disputed registration is aimed at these rights. Being the owner of a trademark protected in the country where the defendant is established is therefore a considerable asset. However, it is not a requirement.
Vente-privee.com is a French e-commerce company that has been operating for 20 years in the organization of event-based sales of all kinds of products and services at reduced prices, including major trademarks.
At the beginning of 2019, Vente-privee.com began a process of unifying its trademarks under a single new name: VEEPEE. This rebranding was widely promoted internationally. It had previously secured trademark rights to the “VEEPEE” sign via a filing an EUTM in November 2017 and via an international trademark filed the same day covering Mexico, Monaco, Norway and Switzerland. Vente-privee.com also owns numerous domain names matching “VEEPEE” such as <veepee.es>, <veepee.it>, <veepee.de> and <veepee.com>.

Having detected the registration of the <veepee.cn> domain name reserved in 2018 by a China-based registrant, the company filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center seeking the transfer of the name.
The likelihood of confusion was easily admitted by the expert, who considered the domain name to be identical to the applicant’s earlier trademarks. On this occasion, he recalls that the trademark does not need to be registered in a specific country for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

This is in line with the assessment of WIPO’s Overview 3.0, which specifies in its section 1.1.2, quoted by the expert, that in view of the international nature of domain names and the Internet, the jurisdiction in which the trademark is protected is not relevant for the analysis of the first criterion. Bearing in mind, however, that this factor may be important for the examination of the other criteria.

the Panel notes that the Respondent has no business relationship with the Complainant and has not received any authorization from it to reserve the disputed domain name. As the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, the Panel finds that Vente-privee.com has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Finally, on the issue of bad faith, the expert insists on the arbitrary nature of the name VEEPEE: “VEEPEE is a made-up word with no particular meaning in Chinese or English”. He also highlights the fact that the domain name has not been actively used, but on the contrary refers to a website in English, accessible to all, on which it is for sale.

Therefore, the expert orders that the disputed domain name <veepee.cn> be transferred to the Complainant.

This decision is a reminder that it is important to choose the right trademarks to be used in a UDRP complaint. Ideally, it is necessary to prove a registration in the country of the registrant, if possible prior to the domain name. In the absence of a registration in the relevant jurisdiction, it is important to demonstrate that the trademark is used and known outside the boundaries of its registration.

In this instance, we note that the disputed domain name is indeed subsequent to the applicant’s trademarks, but prior to the Vente-privee.com rebranding operation by almost a year. This information might have required analysis had the Respondent responded to the Complaint. Information that could have been counterbalanced, however, with the registration date of the name <veepee.com> (the <.com> targeting the international), which is very old: December 6, 1999.

 

SEE ALSO…

♦Domain names

Read More

Online Trademark Protection

Monitoring, protecting and promoting your trademarks online: these are the core business activities of the Dreyfus law firm.

Our team assists you to anticipate, secure and optimize your trademarks, allowing you to enhance your business.

A successful trademark registration does not mean that your trademark is automatically protected. Nonetheless, your trademark has an undeniable business value and as such warrants to be monitored and defended. One of the important issues is that public entities such as the INPI, EUIPO or WIPO are not required to notify prior trademark owners when a third-party applicant files an application for a similar or identical trademark. Since these organisms do not assess whether trademark applications are likely to infringe earlier trademarks, it is up to the applicants to perform a prior art search. In other words, careful trademark monitoring is very important for an optimal and durable protection of your trademark. However, identifying risks and responding accurately, effectively and timely to potential harms is not always obvious.

That is why the Dreyfus team helps you monitor and protect your trademarks online. First, we detect potential infringements, then we inform you in due time when a (strongly) similar or identical trademark is filed.

Thanks to our innovative Dreyfus IPweb® solution, we are able to monitor and automatically detect trademark filings that are identical or similar to yours and to take steps against any potential infringement before a similar trademark enters the market. IPweb® provides direct access to a company’s domain name monitoring services. It covers all social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, as well as advertising platforms such as Google AdWords. Your trademarks are constantly monitored and you will be swiftly alerted in the event of a breach.

After assessing the similarity of the signs and the products and services in question as well as your chances of success, we will inform you immediately and, if necessary, advise you on the steps that should be followed. As it is better to be safe rather than sorry, it is important to act as quickly as possible and to contact the third-party applicant at an early stage, by sending him a warning, a letter of formal notice or even by filing an opposition against the trademark application to ensure that the said applicant uses an alternative name for his/her products and/or services.

 

Detecting potential trademark infringements and securing your trademarks online

 

We report potential trademark infringements on the Internet and social networks and we provide you with personalized advice regarding your portfolio management strategy, including weaknesses that could hinder the development of your (digital) business and give rise to possible litigation.

In this regard, we offer you appropriate and personalized strategies to anticipate dangers, such as online fraud (i.e. phishing, fake websites, identity theft, forged emails, etc.) which requires immediate action as it can be significantly damaging to the image and reputation of your trademark and may generate a financial loss.

For compliance purposes, we can help you put in place a strategy to prevent any breach caused by domain names. This includes – in addition to monitoring your trademark among Internet domain names – monitoring of your trademark on other social networks (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat) to detect and respond appropriately to any new breach.
With our intuitive platform, Dreyfus IPWeb®, we allow our clients to have access to – and closely follow their trademark files online. Moreover, our clients have access to the results of the performed surveillance on trademarks, domain names, corporate names or social networks. With these trace and control tools, we help you restructure the management of your trademark portfolio in an easy and accessible way.

 

 Online trademark audits

 

The next step consists of performing a trademark audit. It is a crucial step to get a global and transversal view of the potential value of your trademarks and to anticipate risks such as conflicts regarding ownership, the loss of rights on an unused trademark or the expiration of your trademark rights. With thorough online trademark evaluations, we will bring to light potential harmful situations and assess the risks and opportunities in relation with your trademark. Besides, trademark audits become important assets when negotiating licensing or assignment agreements.

Furthermore, the Dreyfus team offers you personalized recommendations to strengthen your trademark rights. The online assessment and promotion services offered by the Dreyfus team will allow you to have an accurate and global overview of your situation, from a legal, commercial and technological perspective.

 

(Pre)litigation

 

The Dreyfus law firm assists you with the defense and enhancement of your rights and helps you resolve your disputes efficiently, quickly and amicably. With its detailed knowledge of trademarks in the digital environment, our team helps you settle your disputes online, out-of-court and in a confidential, strategic and efficient manner. Thanks to its know-how and its many clients, the Dreyfus team follows continuously and closely ongoing issues and has an increased vision of current and future risks.

The Dreyfus team will help you successfully defend and enhance your trademark rights and will assist you with the resolution of disputes, infringement actions, problems relating to domain names, as well as during mediation and arbitration procedures. Have you discovered a website that infringes on your trademark? Do you have a French or European Union trademark or an international trademark having effect in France or in the European Union and would you like to file an opposition to an application for registration of a French trademark or an international trademark having effect in France?

Dreyfus & Associates assists you in effectively and rapidly defending your rights. In this regard, we help you introduce an opposition procedure before the INPI to prevent the registration of a trademark that infringes on your prior rights. We also assist you in initiating an out-of-court settlement procedure before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, including the resolution of national and international domain name disputes.

 

SEE ALSO…

Trademarks, other distinctive signs and franchise

Read More

Brief : DOMAIN NAMES: THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF DIFFERENT DOMAIN NAME SYSTEMS

A website can only be accessed if a system is able to link the URL entered by a user in his or her browser to the server of the website in question. This is called the Domain Name System (DNS). The DNS operates as an intermediary system through sending a request on the Internet in order to make the link between the address entered in the browser by the user and the actual access to the site. This is the reason why the DNS is often compared to a telephone directory as it allows to translate the names given by the user into names that are intelligible for machines.

When everything is set up properly to ensure that the DNS can play its role as an intermediary, it is sufficient to just have a device with Internet connection to access the site.

But currently some registrars offer domain names that don’t rely on the traditional DNS. Instead, they use technologies such as blockchain.

In order to be accessible, these domain names require the installation of specific tools such as particular browsers or plug-ins. These constitute additional costs for potential buyers who simply want to obtain a traditional domain name for their website.

 

These offers present two fundamental risks. The first issue relates to the communication of the Internet regulatory authority ICANN of November 24, 2021. It concerns the risk of confusion for consumers. In fact, it is not easy for the average consumer to make the distinction between these two types of offers whereas the purchase of these different domain names covers very different realities.

The second issue of this alternative resolution system consists of the risk of conflicts between domain names that would be registered through the traditional DNS system and those based on one of the new non-DNS systems.

These possible conflicts include name collisions. Hence, this phenomenon might intensify with the creation of parallel networks. This might occur when the system being used to translate names being entered by users into intelligible names for machines – in this case a non-DNS system – is sent to a DNS system, for which the address corresponds to the address of a different website.

In that case, the user would be redirected to the wrong domain name. These uncertainties could give rise to legal conflicts in the coming years if the new systems become more important.

 

 

Sources: ICANN Blog, Buyer Beware: Not All Names Are Created Equal, November 24, 2021, A. Durand
ICANN, Frequently Asked Questions: Name Collisions for IT Professionals

Read More

Brief : The AFNIC 2020 annual report

The digital transition of small and medium-sized enterprises was the AFNIC’s 2020 target – a year marked by the health and economic crisis. This target was reflected in the 2020 Annual Report of the French association. The report was released in June 2021.

 

In fact, there was a growth of 7% of <.fr> registrations with a total reach of 3,670,372 registered names at the end of 2020. The reason of this growth were the AFNIC’s efforts to make the registration and use of <.fr> more accessible, safe and proximate.

 

Given the increasing need for digital transformation, small and medium-sized enterprises had little choice but to develop and exploit Internet activities. The AFNIC organized a massive promotion of a secure and advantageous online presence via its Réussir-en.fr device. Thanks to this initiative, digital transitions took place more efficiently and more often.

 

In addition, the AFNIC signed a partnership with the DGCCRF (Directorate General of Competition, Consumer and Repression of Fraud). The aim of their partnership was to transmit the list of corresponding domain names to the DGCCRF on a daily basis, in order to block sites that supported or facilitated deceptive marketing practices. The general idea was to create a climate of trust.

 

Finally, the AFNIC Foundation took measures, in the context of the worldwide health crisis, to support local initiatives. The foundation aimed to reduce the distance with the digital environment and to restore the social connection, in particular through: purchasing computers for schoolchildren, purchasing sound equipment for EHPAD residents or setting up dematerialized accompaniments in order to find jobs online.

 

The AFNIC succeeded to achieve its 2020 goal to ensure the digital transition of small and medium-sized enterprises through making <.fr> safer and more accessible, through massive promotion and through supporting local initiatives to reduce the distance with the digital environment and to restore the social connection.

Read More

« .au direct »: the new Australian namespace that will launch on March 24, 2022

On the 24th of March 2022, a new name space will launch in Australia: “.au direct”.

It is a new name space that enables Australian citizens, permanent residents and organizations registered in Australia to register domain names directly before the .au.

Instead of registering and using domain names in the traditional namespaces such “com.au”, or “org.au”, “net.au”, “gov.au”, “edu.au” etc., Australian internet users will be able to opt for simpler and shorter domain names directly ending with “.au”.

In fact, the new name space enables two application possibilities. You can register a completely new “.au direct” name that isn’t registered in any existing .au namespace. The second option is to register the exact match of an already existing .au domain that you hold.

Where to register your “.au direct” domain name and at what price? 

From March 24, 2022, you will be able to simply register new or matching “.au” domain names through participating auDA accredited registrars. Bearing in mind that the rule of supply and demand applies, the registration prices vary between different registrars. It is likely that a potentially popular name is more expensive than an ‘ordinary’ one. Nonetheless, the official administrator of Australia’s .au top level domain (the auDA”) sets the wholesale price for all .au domain names. Whether you opt for a “com.au”, “net.au” or “.au direct”, the wholesale price will be the same.

What are the requirements?

First of all, you need to prove a verifiable Australian presence. Article 1.4 of the .au Domain Administration Rules provides an exhaustive list of 17 natural and legal persons that are considered to have an ‘Australian presence’. In short it concerns Australian citizens, permanent residents of Australia and organizations and companies registered in Australia. This Australian presence is thus the first requirement for any person or organization who wants to register a “.au directdomain name.

The second requirement regards the name itself. Although there are no allocation rules for the “.au” namespace, in the sense that you can freely choose any name, this doesn’t mean that there are no restrictions.

First, the name that you would like to register needs to be available. Considering the new namespace will launch in March 2022, the availability is not a problem (yet). But the ‘first come, first served rule’ applies so the risk of unavailability will be something to bear in mind.

Second, the name cannot be mentioned in the « reserved list ». Under the Licensing Rules, you can’t apply for a registration of a word, acronym or abbreviation that is restricted or prohibited under an Australian law or a name or abbreviation of an Australian state or territory, including the word ‘Australia’.

Finally, you can’t register a name that is deemed to pose a risk to the security, stability and integrity of the “.au” and global Domain Name System.

The second requirement consists thus of a negative requirement; you cannot register an unavailable name, nor a so-called reserved name.

How to register “.au direct” domain names?

Provided that the Australian presence and availability requirements are met, you will be able to register any new “.au direct” name via any participating auDA accredited registrar starting from March 24.

Furthermore, provided that these same requirements are met, Australian internet users will also be able to register the exact match of an existing .au domain that you already hold. However, this allocation process is a bit more complex. The .au Domain Administration Rules provide for a “Priority Allocation Process”. This process foresees a six-month “Priory Application Period” – from March 24 until September 20, 2022 – for holders of a “.au” name in another namespace (such as “com.au”, “org.au” or “net.au”) who would like to apply for its exact “.au direct” match.

For example, if you own the domain name “dreyfus.com.au”, you can apply for the registration of “dreyfus.au” within this period via an accredited registrar. If it appears that the requirements are met, you will get a priority status and you will be put on “Priority Hold for the Priority Application Period”. Through this status, you have the first opportunity to register the name which prevents third parties from registering it.

In some cases, there may be more than one applicant for the same “.au direct” domain name. For instance, if you hold the domain name “dreyfus.com.au” and a third party holds the domain name “dreyfus.net.au”, and you both want to register the “dreyfus.au” direct domain name, the “.au direct” exact match will be allocated according to the Priority Allocation Process.

A distinction is made between two priority categories. The first Priority Category regards names that are created on or before the 4th of February 2018. The second Priority Category regards Names created after the 4th of February 2018.

Under Article 1.9 of the .au Domain Administration Rules, Category 1 applicants have priority over Category 2 applicants.

In case there are multiple Category 1 applications, the name is allocated on agreement/negotiation between the Category 1 applicants.

Finally, if there are only Category 2 applicants, the name is simply allocated to the applicant with the earliest creation date.

As a final note, registering a “.au direct” domain name does not entail any negative consequences. You can always attempt to register your “.au direct” exact match because it has no consequences on your existing .au domain names. So, if you already own the domain name “dreyfus.com.au” and you want to register “drefyus.au”, the domain name “dreyfus.com.au” will not be affected by this registration and will continue to exist.

On the 24th of March 2022, the new “.au direct” namespace will thus launch in Australia.

This new name space that enables anyone with a verified connection to Australia, such as citizens and permanent residents of Australia and organizations registered in Australia, to register “.au direct” domain names. Instead of registering and using names in the traditional namespaces, it will be possible to opt for simpler and shorter domain names that directly ends with “.au”.

The first possibility is to apply for a registration of a new .au direct names that are not already registered in the .au registry.

The second possibility consist of registering the exact match of existing .au domain names. The allocation of these domain names is regulated by the specific provisions of the “Priority Allocation Process”.

About this topic…

.au direct update – .auDA WEBSITE

Reverse domain name hijacking

Read More

The next round of application for gTLDs

Homme – réseau – internet - informatiqueIn 2013, ICANN launched a vast operation to remedy domain name saturation and promote competition by setting up new gTLDs. These new extensions have helped unclog the market for more traditional extensions such as “.com”.

With the next application window expected in 2022, many companies are already showing a strong interest in “.BRAND”, such as Uber, which reportedly announced it at an ICANN virtual meeting (as reported by a GoDaddy registrar).
The personalised extension has many advantages, such as trust, since the company only is able to allow the registration of a domain name in its “. BRAND”. It also shows the willingness of companies to invest in order to enhance their trademarks.

 

On the other hand, other companies, due to lack of use or for other reasons, such as the restrictions that weigh on any registry, decide to terminate their “.BRAND”. In May, June and July 2021, four companies proceeded to this termination. This is what the recent update of the ICANN website shows:

 

• The “.SWIFTCOVER” for the company Swiftcover of Axa.
• The “.RMIT” for the company Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
• The “.DABUR” for the company DABUR India Limited
• The “.LIXIL” for LIXIL Group Corporation

In 2012, many big companies applied for their “.BRAND”. It should be noted, however, that this application has a significant cost. In addition to the technical and consulting fees, the amount to apply was US$ 180,000 per application in 2012.

With the challenges raised by the security on the Internet and the obligations that weigh on companies, especially to protect the data of their customers, it is very likely, despite these costs, that the next round will be a real success. Many “.BRAND” are successfully used today, both from a marketing point of view and in terms of the security they provide to Internet users.

 

About this topic…

 

How to prepare for the next round of applications to the <.mark>?

ICANN Summit: the fight against DNS abuse, a GAC priority

Read More

ICANN Summit: the fight against DNS abuse, a GAC priority

recommandationThe 71st ICANN Summit gave its GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) the competence to take stock of the essential elements of its missions, reflected in its report of June 21, 2021. In the “Issues of Importance to the GAC”, several elements were highlighted.

1. The next round of new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name

 

Göran Marby, CEO of ICANN, recalled that strengthening competition and improving the opportunities of Internet users to benefit from their own identifiers is part of ICANN’s duty. The ICANN presented the ODP (Operational Design Phase). This is a system that provides information on the operational issues of the project and aims to implement advice to make the procedure more effective.

But on the other side of the coin, there are also fraudsters amongst the beneficiaries. This is the case, for instance, regarding new gTLDs that were launched on the market almost ten years ago (like <.icu> or <.guru>).

 

 

2. Addressing the issue of domain name abuse

 

The issue of DNS abuse remains a flagship issue for the CAG, who describes the problem as a “priority”. DNS abuse is a term that refers to piracy cases where domain names are registered and used for fraudulent purposes such as phishing. The idea of the Framework on Domain Generating Algorithms (DGA) associated with Malware and Botnets was created. The objective of this framework is to place registries at the center of the fight against these abuses, and to encourage them to prevent the blocking of domain names from DGA’s. These DGA’s are algorithms used to generate a very large amount of domain names that can serve as meeting points between control servers and the command, allowing botnets to thrive more easily.

 

3. Reliability of Data

The GAC highlighted the importance of the correctness and completeness of domain name registration. Data reliability is an important aspect to ensure the prevention of – and fight against DNS abuses. It recalls the obligation of registers and registration offices to verify, validate and correct data. One of the objectives is to respond to the pitfalls of these data in a timely and efficient manner. The GAC specified that this should not only concern compliance with the GDPR but that it should include all information relating to domain names.

 

4. Accessibility of data

The ODP for Stage 2 of the EPDP has been put on the table. The purpose of this ODP is to inform interested parties on the question whether the SSAD (System for Standardized Access/Disclosure) works in favor of the interests of the ICANN community, especially in view of its impact in terms of costs. For the record, via the SSAD, it is possible to get information about requests that demand to lift the anonymity on certain domain names.

Phase 2A of the EPDP (Accelerated Policy Development Process) was discussed after the release of the EPDP Phase 2A Initial Report on the “Temporary Specification” (which is a new version of the Whois). This report provides guidance on how to publish registration information on companies that is not protected by the GDPR as well as email addresses for those who are anonymized.

 

5. Consumer protection

Finally, the recommendations of the CCT (Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review) were addressed. Among the recommendations that the GAC would like to see implemented was a pro bono assistance program as well as the recommendation concerning the identification of party chains that are responsible for registering domain names.

The ICANN’s report of June 21, 2021 highlighted several important elements. The fact that new gTLDs allow companies to have a TLD in their name engenders both benefices and dangers. It underlined the issue of domain name abuse and the importance of the correctness and completeness of domain name registration data, as well as the importance of accessibility of data and the need for consumer protection.

 

 

Dreyfus law firm

 

 

 

About this topic…

 

Attempted reverse domain name hijacking is an abuse of the administrative process

Read More

The reputation of the trademark is not enough to prove typosquatting

Ordinateur brainstorm meeting applicationWhen you are the owner of a well-known trademark and you detect a domain name that is almost identical to it, and moreover on sale for a substantial amount of money, it is tempting to consider that it is a case of typosquatting. However, it is essential to pay attention to details.

The Valeo Group

 

The Valeo Group, which specializes in the design, production and distribution of automobile components, and its affiliate, Valeo Services, have experienced this, after filing a complaint against the <valoservices.com> domain name registered in 2018, which was offered for sale for EUR 2288.

The applicants were respectively registered in 1955 and 1987 and the name VALEO was adopted in 1980. Together they have 59 research centers and 191 production sites. They have received numerous awards for their products. They also own several word marks based on the “VALEO” sign, notably in France, the European Union, China and the United States, and also hold semi-figurative marks including the name “VALEO SERVICE”. Finally, they operate the domain names <valeo.com> and <valeoservice.com>.

The respondent, who answered the complaint, describes himself as an engineer based in the United States who has a large portfolio of generic domain names.

The respondent believes that there is no likelihood of confusion between the disputed name and the complainants’ trademarks. It explains that “valo” means “light” in Finnish and that a search on the sign “VALO” on Google or on trademark databases does not reveal any trademark including “VALEO”.

While these arguments, especially the second one, are interesting, they have no place in the analysis of the likelihood of confusion between a trademark and a domain name, which consists of a simple side-by-side analysis of the two names. Since the omission of the letter “E” can be perceived as a spelling mistake, the expert considers that there is indeed a similarity between the signs.

After this first step, the expert does not address the issue of the defendant’s rights or legitimate interest, but directly addresses the issue of bad faith. On this point, the applicants state that their trademarks are very well known and rely on decisions of the Chinese and European Trademark Union Offices as well as on old UDRP decisions.

The Respondent reiterates its arguments regarding the use of the Finnish language and its clearance searches. The respondent states that it has several domain names in a foreign language or containing the term “service”.

The panelist is skeptical about mixing Finnish and English in a domain name but considers the respondent’s research that shows that a query on “VALO” does not lead to the complainants and the fact that many companies around the world are named VALO or have adopted a name beginning with VALO. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, the expert points out that it is always possible to turn to a more appropriate procedure. The Panel also rejects the Respondent’s request to characterize the complaint as a reverse domain name hijacking.

Thus, it is advisable to put oneself in the shoes of the reserving party to determine whether he could have had knowledge of the trademarks, in particular by taking into account his country of origin and the field of activity in which the trademark is renowned. In this respect, the expert notes that the car parts sector is relatively discreet.

In order to offer our clients a unique expertise, necessary for the exploitation of intangible assets, we keep you informed about intellectual property and digital economy issues through articles written by Dreyfus’ legal team.

 

 

About this topic …

 

Why is the well knownness of an earlier trademark not enough to qualify bad faith ?

 

Read More

Podcast – You, Me & IP : Intellectual property, Cybersecurity and malicious Domain Names: how to combine them?

podcastWe are pleased to present the “You, Me & IP” Podcast – Episode 4 in which Nathalie Dreyfus, founder of Dreyfus & Associates is the guest of Carlos Northon, founder and CEO of Northen’s Media PR & Marketing Ltd.

“Intellectual property, Cybersecurity and malicious Domain Names: how to combine them?”

 

If you want to know more about intellectual property issues and discover a rich and experienced vision on the subject, you can also read the article Nathalie Dreyfus wrote for “The Global IP Matrix”.

 

ABOUT THIS TOPIC…

 

How to protect your brands in the digital age?

 

 

 

Read More

Reverse domain name hijacking

domain name administrative processReverse domain name hijacking constitutes an abuse of procedure. On this topic, the WIPO issued on April 4, 2021 a decision reminding Complainants of their failings: it was their duty to proceed to relevant checks before initiating the complaint and to build their case properly. The examiner was all the more severe given that Complainants were represented by counsel.

The complaint in question was filed by three applicants.

 

 

First Complainant is an Indian company notably specializing in the manufacture and sale of sanitary products and kitchen appliances. First Complainant was originally known as Hindustan Twyfords, but later changed its name to HSIL Ltd. in 2009. Second Complainant, Somany Home Innovation Limited, was incorporated in 2017. It manufactures and sells, among other goods, air and water purifiers, water heaters, air coolers. Like Second Complainant, Third Complainant, Brilloca Ltd, results from the split of First Complainant.

Having detected the registration of the domain names <hsil.com> registered on November 16, 1999 and <shil.com> on December 9, 1999, Complainants filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to request the transfer of the domain names.

 

 

Respondent is a UK registered company, established on October 7, 1998, which provides web development services to help small businesses gain visibility on the Internet, initially focusing on the health club and leisure equipment market. In addition to the main site « health-club.net », Respondent has registered a number of short acronymic domain names.

First Complainant owns trademarks for the sign « HSIL », the first of which dates from 2004. Complainants further argue that Somany Home Innovation is widely known by the sign « SHIL », the acronym that corresponds to its corporate name.

 

 

First and foremost, the panelist notes that the applicants have not submitted any evidence showing the use of the sign « SHIL » to the point of making it a distinctive identifier for their benefit. Therefore, the latter considers that they are in default concerning the proof of likelihood of confusion between the <shil.com> domain name and an earlier trademark in which they potentially have rights. On the other hand, the likelihood of confusion was recognized for the name <hsil.com>.

 

 

Then, regarding the issue of legitimate interest and/or rights in the domain names, the panelist takes into account the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 1999, before the alleged filing and use of Complainants’ « HSIL » and « SHIL » marks. As opposed to Complainants, Respondent has provided evidence to support its claims that the names were used as acronyms for « Sports / Health in London » and « Health / Sports in London ».

Besides, the disputed domain names were registered in 1999, many years before the filing of the HSIL marks and the registration of domain names containing « HSIL ». In addition, the Complainants have no trademark rights for the sign « SHIL ».

Also, Respondent has demonstrated a use of the disputed domain names in connection to a bona fide offering of goods and services.

 

The complaint is therefore dismissed.

In addition, the panelist found that the complaint constituted reverse domain name hijacking, an attempt to obtain a domain name by artificially proving infringement.

Complainants, who are represented by counsel, should have anticipated the weakness of their argument and the fact that the acronyms « Hsil » and « Shil » could not refer exclusively to them, as alleged in the complaint without any evidence.

The panelist also notes that Complainants tried to make it look like trademarks were rejected in India because of the « well-known status and enormous goodwill » acquired by their earlier marks. This, despite the fact that the defendant has proven that third parties have been able to obtain registration of trademarks for the sign « SHIL » in India.

 

The panelist also targets Complainants’ representative and denounces an « unfamiliarity with the UDRP » and raises the fact that the latter has listed the registrar as respondent simply because it had allowed the registration of an available domain name, even though it is not in its power to decide whether or not to allow a registration.

 

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, April 4, 2021, Case No. D2020-3416, HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited v. SHIL Ltd, Brilloca Limited v. GOTW Hostmaster, Get on The Web Limited, India

Read More

What are the suggested modifications to the UDRP?

UDRP principlesFollowing the UDRP ‘s new gTLD program, new Rights Protection Review Mechanisms (RPM) have been implemented to protect trademark holders, such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) procedure.

 

ICANN has now decided to address changes suggested by trademark holders and intellectual property experts regarding the UDRP. For instance, one of these suggestions is that a domain name should be considered abusive if it is registered OR if it is used in bad faith, instead of requiring that both these conditions are met. The idea is to lighten the burden of proof on the rights owner to take into account a more up-to-date reality. Another suggestion is to provide for an accelerated procedure in case of abusive conduct and to get a decision more rapidly if the defendant fails to respond to the complaint.

 

It has also been proposed to provide for a presumption of bad faith if the registrant has lost three UDRP complaints and to require any repeat offender to pay a response fee to defend the case. The central issue at this stage of the study is to understand the extent to which the UDRP principles should be changed in favour of trademark owners, while knowingt hat it may weaken the UDRP principles.

 

 

Sources:

Overview: The Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Review https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/rpm

Phase: 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process :

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-initial-report-2020-03-18-en

Read More

The Vinci’s case: how to set up an effective domain name strategy?

Noms de domaine, stratégie, entreprise, VINCI

On November 22, 2016, at 4:05 p.m. sharp, the Vinci group is the victim of identity theft. Several media receive a false press release reporting a review of Vinci’s consolidated accounts for fiscal year 2015 and the first half of 2016 following alleged accounting embezzlement.

In 2019, the US news agency Bloomberg appealed a decision of the AMF’s sanctions commission. The hearing before the court of appeal will be held this Thursday. Bloomberg was sentenced to 5 million euros for relaying information from a false Vinci press release.

 

A fake press release from Bloomberg

The American news agency Bloomberg is accused of having disseminated, in 2016, false information about Vinci without having verified it.

On November 22, 2016, at 4:05 p.m. sharp, the Vinci group is the victim of identity theft. Several media receive a false press release reporting a review of Vinci’s consolidated accounts for fiscal year 2015 and the first half of 2016 following alleged accounting embezzlement.

The false statement also indicates that the chief financial officer was fired. Less than a minute later, between 4:06 p.m. and 4:07 p.m., Bloomberg picked up the information and disclosed it on his terminal.

This press release had even been signed with the name of the real person in charge of Vinci’s press relations, while referring to a false cell phone number.

In defense, the defendants point out before the commission that the tone, the absence of spelling errors, the careful layout, the exact references to certain directors of Vinci or to its auditors, the mention of the real spokesperson for Vinci as well as the plausibility of the foot of the press release, which contained a link to unsubscribe from the Vinci mailing list and alerted the recipient to the automated processing of data, mentioning the contact details of the real correspondent Cnil de Vinci , did not differentiate this press release from a real press release established by Vinci.

 

The domain name issue in the false press release

The only inaccuracies in the false press release: the domain name of the false Vinci site to which the press release referred and the false mobile phone number of the “media contact”.

The fraudulent press release was also received by AFP, which did not follow up after realizing that this document had been posted on a mirror website, very similar to the real site but with a separate address (vinci.group and not vinci.com).

 

How to protect your domain name?

Domain names represent an essential intangible asset for companies since they allow access to websites related to their activity. Now, protecting the domain names associated with the trademark or the business of the company has become almost as important to the company as the protection of its brands.

In addition, domain names are the preferred medium for cyber-attacks which calls for increased vigilance on the part of owners and Internet users.

 

Phishing, fake president fraud, identity theft, fake job offers, theft of personal or banking data, whaling… frauds are numerous and are constantly adapting to technological progress;

 

Fraud is facilitated by the very protective provisions of the GDPR, which prevent the direct identification of the domain name registrant; technical service providers tend to rely upon the provisions of the GDPR and the LCEN to justify their inaction and allow fraud to continue;

There is a great risk of damage to the company’s image and reputation. Such fraud also has a significant financial impact, given the risk of embezzlement and money laundering.

The AMF’s Guide to Periodic Disclosure for Listed Companies (dated June

To protect your domain name from cybersquatters or competitors, it is recommended to also register the domain name as a trademark in addition to the reservation of the domain name.

It is possible, before making a domain name reservation and trademark registration, to check its availability, to avoid conflicts between domain names, trademarks or corporate names.

Domain names are now an integral part of the international economic landscape. Like industrial property rights and traditional distinctive signs, they are instruments of competition and intangible assets of companies. It is of course essential to have it for anyone who wants to exist in a market.

But care must be taken not to come into conflict with one’s competitors by using, even in good faith, distinctive signs close to theirs. Conversely, it is also necessary to enforce its own distinctive signs by not allowing third parties to appropriate signs close to its own in order to offer the same or similar services.

 

How to mitigate the risks regarding domain names ?

– Proceed to an audit of the corporate trademark and the company’s flagship trademarks among domain names, in order to map the risks;

– Set up a 7/7 watch of the corporate trademark among domain names, and a 7/7 or at least weekly watch on the company’s trademarks dedicated to goods or services;

– Set up watches on social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn;

– Proceed with the preventive registration of domain names in risky extensions (such as .COM, .CO, .CM, .GROUP);

– Take preventive action(s) against potentially dangerous domain names;

– Define procedures and set up a crisis management unit to quickly react to infringements in case of emergency;

– Draft or update the company’s domain name policy (registration procedures, compliance with legal obligations, best practices) to be shared internally and with the company’s service providers and suppliers.

Cyber ​​threats are more numerous and more complex and it has also become increasingly difficult to take action against registrants of disputed domains. More than ever, monitoring is required with the implementation of risk mapping and a defense strategy.

 

Dreyfus advise you in setting up the appropriate strategy to limit the risks related to domain names and to integrate industrial property assets in your compliance plans.

Read More

Domain name right : bona fide offer of goods or services

Rayonnage de vêtements de mode.  A right or legitimate interest in a domain name may be demonstrated by its use in the context of a bona fide offer of goods or services. This assessment requires to take into account how the domain name has been used, but also the space-time framework: When was the domain name registered? By whom? In which country?

Founded in 2003, Ba & sh is a French company operating in the field of design, manufacturing and distribution of women’s ready-to-wear clothing and fashion accessories.

Having detected the registration of the domain names <bashshitever.com> registered in 2014 and <bashclothing.co> in 2020, Ba & sh filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in order to obtain the transfer of these domain names.

While the construction of the <bashshitever.com> domain name is somewhat intriguing, the fact that the <bashclothing.co> name contains the term “clothing” may have led Ba & sh to consider that its rights were being infringed.

In any event, since the domain names include the sign “BASH” except for the ampersand, the panellist acknowledges a likelihood of confusion.

Nevertheless, the panellist deems that Respondent has chosen these domain names independently of Complainant’s trademark and has used them in the context of a bona fide offer of its goods on the corresponding websites.

Indeed, Respondent is from Malaysia, where the company was founded in 2015, while Ba & sh has provided no evidence of actual use of its BA & SH mark in that territory. Khor Xin Yu, Respondent, explains that he co-founded “BASH CLOTHING” in 2013 when he was 18 years old and that the mark was also used in Singapore in 2017. Initially, the sign used was “Bash Shit Ever”, later changed in 2020 to “Bash Clothing” as part of a branding update.

Similarly, Respondent provided an explanation and documentation justifying the selection of the sign BASH because of the meaning of the dictionary term “bash”. Finally,  Respondent used a logo that differs from that of Complainant.

Complainant has not shown that  Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

Indeed, when the first disputed domain name <bashshitever.com> was acquired by Respondent, Complainant had been operating in France and worldwide for about 11 years and had owned an international trademark for about 7 years, designating Malaysia. However, Complainant has not presented any evidence of actual use of its BA & SH trademark in Malaysia at the time of registration of the first disputed domain name.

In addition, a Google search for “bash” shows several results unrelated to Complainant or its trademark. Respondent has also provided a plausible explanation as to why he chose the term “bash”, an English dictionary term related to the idea of a party insofar as its initial target was female students.

Finally, although the parties operate in the same market segment (i.e. ready-to-wear and accessories), Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not show an intention to compete with Complainant and its trademark, given the different logos/layouts, the significantly lower prices at which the Respondent’s clothing is offered for sale, and the absence of any information on Respondent’s website that would lead users to believe that the website is operated by Complainant or any of its affiliated entities.

The complaint is, therefore, dismissed.

Ba & sh should have investigated Respondent’s motives before initiating a UDRP proceeding, including whether its trademark was known in Respondent’s country when the first domain name was registered. It should also have determined for how long  Respondent had been using the “Bash” sign for fashion activities. An investigation could have revealed these elements. Respondent explains that he first marketed the Bash clothing on social networks. And, depending on the answers to these two questions, write a proper letter to the defendant

Read More

Why does the willingness to sell a domain name is not conditioned on an active approach? 

Télévision netflix (OMPI, Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation, 23 février 2021, affaire n° D2020-3322, Netflix Inc. c. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Siddharth Sethi)

 

Avons-nous encore besoin d’introduire Netflix ? Cette plateforme proposant des services de streaming vidéo compte 195 millions de membres dans plus de 190 pays et semble être connue dans le monde entier. Pourtant, certaines personnes tentent de se soustraire à cette notoriété pour tenter de se construire une légitimité artificielle et justifier l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine .

 

En effet, alors que la société Netflix détient de nombreux enregistrements dans le monde pour le signe « NETFLIX » en tant que marque , la société a détecté l’enregistrement du nom de domaine <netflix.store> . En conséquence, elle a déposé une plainte auprès du Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation de l’OMPI pour obtenir son transfert.

Le nom de domaine, enregistré le 3 septembre 2017, pointe vers une page qui présente une animation composée d’un effet d’éclatement de couleur et se termine par un écran de couleur vierge.
Le titulaire soutient que le nom de domaine ne reproduit pas la marque NETFLIX mais est plutôt composé de deux termes , “net” et “flix”. Or, comme prévu, l’expert considère que la marque NETFLIX est reproduite à l’identique dans le nom de domaine.
L’expert considère que si l’utilisation du nom de domaine n’est pas commerciale, son enregistrement ne serait pas non plus considéré comme légitime. En effet, le site mis en place vise à légitimer l’enregistrement afin de dissimuler l’intention de vendre le nom de domaine au Plaignant. Ni la reproduction de la marque NETFLIX dans le nom de domaine litigieux, ni l’extension <.store> n’ont de sens si le projet devait effectivement être non commercial.

 

En conséquence, il estime que l’intimé n’a aucun droit ou intérêt légitime sur le nom de domaine .
Par ailleurs, l’expert constate que le Défendeur connaissait le Plaignant et son activité et prévoyait qu’en achetant le nom de domaine, il serait en mesure de le revendre au Plaignant avec un bénéfice significatif. Cette stratégie a été partiellement couronnée de succès, car Netflix a fait une offre que l’intimée a refusée, essayant d’obtenir une somme considérablement plus élevée.

Or, l’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine qui correspond à la marque d’un Plaignant avec l’intention de le vendre au Plaignant lui-même , établit la mauvaise foi. L’expert précise que le titulaire « [n’aurait pu] raisonnablement penser qu’un tiers serait en mesure d’utiliser commercialement le Nom de domaine litigieux ». Il convient également de noter que l’intimé a tenté de faire croire à la personne qui l’a contacté qu’il avait reçu d’autres offres plus élevées. En effet, le représentant de Netflix, qui n’avait pas indiqué qu’il agissait pour Netflix, ce qui était un secret de polichinelle, avait proposé la somme de 2 000 USD, que le déclarant jugeait trop faible.

L’expert commente ce comportement récurrent de certains cybersquatteurs : « Peu importe que le Défendeur n’ait pas proposé activement à la vente le Nom de domaine litigieux. Il n’est pas rare que des déclarants opportunistes de noms de domaine incluant une marque tierce attendent d’être approchés, réalisant qu’une offre active de vente du nom de domaine peut faciliter un procès UDRP à leur encontre ».

En conséquence, l’expert conclut que le nom de domaine litigieux a été enregistré et est utilisé de mauvaise foi et ordonne ainsi son transfert au Plaignant.

Sauf dans les cas où un nom de domaine reproduisant une marque notoire telle que NETFLIX est utilisé à des fins de critique sans usage commercial, ou pour un usage commercial minimal, il est quasiment inconcevable d’imaginer qu’un tel nom de domaine ait pu être enregistré de bonne foi . Netflix savait évidemment qu’elle gagnerait le procès, mais a visiblement choisi d’essayer de négocier un rachat à l’amiable pour un budget légèrement inférieur à celui d’une procédure UDRP, si l’on compte les 1 500 USD d’honoraires et les honoraires d’avocat. Cette approche, si elle réussissait, aurait permis d’économiser du temps et de l’argent, mais la simple offre de rachat a pour effet d’encourager le cybersquattage.

Read More

How does the bad faith duplicate between registration and bad faith use?

UDRPWhile one generally refers to the “three criteria” of the UDRP (a trademark similar to the domain name; the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the defendant in the disputed domain name; and the bad faith of the registrant), it should be kept in mind that bad faith in UDRP matters has two aspects: the first is bad faith registration and the second is bad faith usage. Therefore, proving only one of these elements is insufficient even though it may be considered “fair” that a name used in bad faith should be transferred to the applicant.
In the present case, Great American Hotel Group, Inc. complained that its former vice-president retained the domain name <greatamericanhg.com> and changed the password of the account used to manage this name with the registrar.

It all started in 2011 when the applicant decided to adopt the name Great American Hotel Group. Its president at the time asked Mr. Greene, then vice-president of the company, to reserve the domain name <greatamericanhg.group>.
The latter did so, but – apparently without notifying his superior – reserved the domain name in his name instead of that of the company. He did, however, record the company’s postal address, and pay with the company card. In 2012, he hired an anonymity service to hide his data.

Since its registration, the name had been used for the company and Mr. Greene had always treated the domain name as part of the company’s assets.

However, following disagreements, Mr. Greene was suspended from office in 2015 and dismissed in 2016. In 2017, the name was renewed by the company’s technical teams even though Mr. Greene was no longer present. However, the latter subsequently changed the password so that the name could no longer be renewed by the company. The applicant’s counsel proceeded to send Mr. Greene a letter of formal notice, which remained unanswered, leading to the filing of a UDRP complaint.

The panellist acknowledged that the applicant had common law trademark rights through the use of the sign “Great American” and that the registrant did not have any legitimate rights or interest in the name as it was created for the applicant company.
He also acknowledged that the domain name was used by Mr. Greene in bad faith.

Nevertheless, the panellist was more sceptical regarding the issue of bad faith registration. Indeed, the name had been reserved by Mr. Greene at the request of the president of the applicant company, which, in principle, had, in fact, been a registration in good faith.

In order for registration by an employee to qualify as having been done in bad faith, the panellist specified that the employee must have, from the beginning, had “an intention to cause harm”. Therefore, the evaluation must be factual and done on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, Mr. Greene had registered the domain name in his own name. The panellist found that “this may be subject to questioning, and the fact that he did not mention the company does not constitute a good domain name management practice”, however, the president and the company seemed to be equally as uninterested in formalizing the reservation of the name.

For four years, until he was suspended from his functions, the registrant had always displayed conduct that demonstrated that he understood that the name belonged to the company. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that by reserving the name four years earlier, he had intended to compete with the applicant or to benefit from some type of tactical advantage against him.

Consequently, the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed as the registration in bad faith had not been established. Nevertheless, the panellist specified that the applicant could turn to other avenues to try to obtain relief.

The significance of this decision, in addition to highlighting the dual condition of bad faith, is that it reiterates the need to set up an internal naming charter to avoid any dispersion of assets, both in terms of trademarks and domain names.

Read More

How to protect your brands in the digital era?

brand protectionIntellectual property was viewed with passion – and in a style steeped in pre-Romanticism! – as “the most sacred, the most legitimate, the most unassailable […], the most personal of properties”; “The least likely to be contested, the one whose increase can neither hurt republican equality, nor overshadow freedom,” said Patrick Tafforeau in his book Intellectual Property Law published in 2017.

It should be borne in mind that intellectual property is protected by law. This protection is notably achieved through patents, copyright and trademark registrations. These intellectual property rights allow creators to obtain a certain form of recognition or even a financial advantage from their inventions, plant varieties or creations.

In this sense, paragraph 1 of article L111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that: “The author of a work of the mind enjoys on this work, by the sole fact of his creation, of an exclusive and  intangible property right enforceable against all”.

In fact, the Internet has created tremendous opportunities for companies in terms of communicating their brand message. However, its global reach, openness, versatility and the fact that it is largely unregulated are all elements that have created fertile ground for trademark infringement such as counterfeiting.

 

For a long time, real world activity and Internet activity were separated. Today, the two worlds undeniably tend to come together. Trademark law is therefore very useful in defending yourself in the digital era. By appropriately balancing the interests of innovators with those of the general public, the intellectual property system aims to foster an environment conducive to the flourishing of creativity and innovation.

When you create a company or launch a product, know that it is recommended to protect your trademark (which can be the name of your company, a logo, numbers, letters, etc. …). This registration will protect your company from counterfeiting.

Once registered, the trademark is an industrial property title which gives you a monopoly of exploitation for a period of ten years, renewable indefinitely.

Registering your trademark gives you an exclusive right to a sign that distinguishes the products or services you offer from those of your competitors, which is a significant competitive advantage ! As such, your sign is protected for the categories of goods and services referred to in your trademark registration and in the territory for which said registration is accepted.

In this perspective, it is necessary to put in place a strategy for the protection of your brand as soon as possible. Before filing a trademark, it is important to make sure that it is available and that there is no owner of an earlier right to that trademark. You must therefore be the first to register this mark.

The reasons why trademark registration is becoming a necessity are multiplying in the face of the phenomenon of cybersquatting. Thus, owners of registered trademarks benefit from new advantages in the defense of their rights on the Internet.

 

First, it has become increasingly important to protect your brand on social media. Since 2009, Facebook has allowed its members to create usernames, easily accessible, but which can include brands. Prior to 2009, Facebook allowed registered trademark owners to identify their trademarks and prevent their use by other members.

Most social networks register user names on a “first come, first served” basis. In order to defend your rights, it is preferable to have a registered trademark in order to report a violation of trademark rights, according to the general conditions of use of social networks.

 

Secondly, the presence of a mark on the Internet also imposes its protection in referencing on search engines and in particular paid referencing. Through the AdWords system, Google allows advertisers to select keywords so that their ads will appear to Internet users after entering those words into a search. Conflicts arise when advertisers buy keywords that contain brands, but do not have rights to them.

Owning a trademark right then also becomes extremely useful in the fight against unfair practices.

 

Thirdly, the proliferation of new gTLD domain name extensions must also attract the attention of trademark owners. To date, more than 300 new gTLDs have been delegated, and gradually hundreds more will follow. Faced with the risk of conflicts with protected trademarks, a new tool is made available to trademark rights holders: The Trademark Clearinghouse. It is a centralized declarative database of registered trademarks. Once the trademark is registered, the holder benefits from the priority registration period for new gTLDs – Sunrise Period – and is notified when a third party wishes to register a domain name identical or similar to its trademark. The registrant of the disputed domain name is also informed that he may infringe trademark rights.

 

Finally, if a domain name reproducing or containing a trademark is registered, the trademark rights holder has the possibility of taking action against cybersquatters using dedicated extrajudicial procedures such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and the Uniform Domain Resolution Policy (UDRP). These dedicated procedures are only open to trademark holders.

It should be remembered that the business landscape has changed with the rise of the Internet and, in order to thwart the risks of intellectual property infringements on online markets, it is important that companies adapt their management of industrial property rights portfolio accordingly.

 

Nathalie Dreyfus – Industrial Property Attorney, Expert at the Paris Court of Appeal, Founder & Director of Cabinet Dreyfus in Paris – Dreyfus.fr

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Read More

Can ICANN provide a solution for IT security problems?

website securityThe DNS NEWS report No. 271 highlights the overall criticism of ICANN solution for not intervening as much as its powers allow in Internet security issues, even though the DNS breaches do not decrease the number of hits. A sort of criticism derives from this observation: should ICANN become a kind of Internet welfare state or should it remain in the background, which would be recommended by the defenders of Internet neutrality.

It should be noted that in 2018, ICANN solution had already undertaken measures to make the Internet a little more secure, by changing the cryptographic key used to protect the Internet’s address book, the DNS (Domain Name System). However, further efforts are expected.
Domain Name System. – V. ICANN, 16 sept. 2018, Approved Board Resolutions [ R]egular Meeting of the ICANN Board).

 

Source: Dns-news.fr, date, rapp. n° 271, 

 

To discover…

♦ ICANN Summit: the fight against DNS abuse, a GAC priority

 

Read More

The current reputation of the trademark is not sufficient to prove bad faith registration of an old domain name

domain name registrationSource: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Nov. 24, 2020, case DRO2020-0007, NAOS c/ Bioderm Medical Center

 

The Bioderma brand has a world-wide reputation but was this reputation already established in Romania at the beginning of the years 2000? The Bioderm Medical Center, a clinic based in Romania, answers no to this question.

NAOS, owner of the Bioderma trademark, has detected the registration by the Centre Médical Bioderm of a domain name reproducing its trademark, namely <bioderma.ro>. However, said domain name is quite old as it has been registered on February 24, 2005.

On September 4, 2020, NAOS filed a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to obtain the transfer of this domain name. This complaint is based on an International trademark Bioderma, protected in Romania since 1997.

Nonetheless, the defendant claims to have used the sign Bioderma as its business name for several years, hence the registration of the domain name <bioderma.ro> and the subsequent change of its coporate name.
The expert in charge of the case is particularly thorough in its assessing whether the defendant has the legitimate interest and rights in the disputed domain name or not.
He considers that even if the latter produced a Kbis extract showing that its commercial name, in 2003, was indeed Bioderma, it is insufficient to prove a legitimate interest or rights on the domain name. The defendant should have brought evidence that it was commonly known by the Bioderma name.

The expert also notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive web page and therefore concludes that there was nobona fide use of the name in connection with an offer of goods and services and no legitimate non-commercial use of the name.
It is however on the ground of bad faith that the expert finally decides in favour of Bioderm Medical Center.
The latter notes that the International registration of the applicant’s Bioderma trademark is several years older than the disputed domain name and that this trademark is currently renowned. However, the evidence brought by the applicant are deemed insufficient to demonstrate the possible or actual knowledge of this trademark by the defendant in 2005, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

Indeed, although the earlier mark was established in the 70’s in France and was first registered in Romania in 1997, the first subsidiary of the applicant, established in Italy, only opened in 2001: the true starting point of the brand’s internationalization.
Yet, the defendant founded the company in 2003 and carried on its business under the name Bioderma until 2008.

From there, it is not possible to establish that it had targeted the company or its trademark to mislead or confuse Internet users. Moreover, the defendant did not conceal its identity and responded to the complaint, which shows good faith.

This decision is a reminder that it is essential to place oneself at the time of domain name registration in order to assess the aim of the registrant. Even if the prior trademark enjoys a world-wide reputation on the day of the complaint, the dive into the past is inevitable: it must be determined whether the defendant, located in a certain country, had knowledge of the rights or reputation of the trademark. In this case, the expert took into account, among other things, that the defendant used the commercial name “Bioderma” in 2005. Therefore, it is essential to investigate on the registrant and their situation at the time of registration of the domain name, here particularly old. To that end, seeking legal advice from an IP lawyer specialized in UDRP procedures is strongly recommended.

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries of the world. Please feel free to contact us.

Read More

The creation of a data access system Whois by ICANN

Since the advent of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it has become really difficult to obtain information about the registrant of a domain name. This obviously complicates the dialogue between trademark and domain name holders.

 

ICANN has proposed a project to create a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD), which would allow standardized access to non-public data on domain name registrations.
The objective of the SSAD is to provide a predictable, transparent, efficient and accountable framework for access to non-public registration data. It must also be consistent with the GDPR.
However, the decision whether or not to grant requests would still belong to the registrars, as legal constraints on personal data may vary from country to country.

 

This project accelerated in August during Stage 2 of the policy development process, during which a final report was presented that provides 22 recommendations for the system.
The creation of this SSAD could, in the coming years, facilitate the fight against cybersquatting, which has been strongly impacted by the GDPR and WhoIs anonymization processes. It should be remembered that the next round of requests for domain name extensions should take place in 2023, bringing a whole new set of challenges in the fight against Internet attacks.

 

Source: LexisNexis, N°1 (January 2021)

Read More

Domain names in <.suck> : between attack to brand image and freedom of expression

Sources: Domain Incite, Free speech, or bad faith? UDRP panels split on Everything.sucks domains, Oct. 22, 2020:

Free speech, or bad faith? UDRP panels split on Everything.sucks domains


Mirapex.sucks, Case n° 103141, 2020-06-29 : https ://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php ?dispute_id=103141
Bioderma.sucks, Case n° 103142, 2020-07-01 : https ://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php ?dispute_id=103142DNS News No. 270, Oct. 2020

The top-level domain name extension <.sucks> was open for registration by ICANN in 2015. At the time, some brands were already concerned about the risk of cybersquatting on these extensions, and the possible damage to the brand image that this could generate. In fact, many domain names that use trademarks known and ending in <.sucks> were born. Very often, these domain names refer to pages where Internet users can complain about the brand in question, whether they are consumers or former employees.

During the past months, the phenomenon has intensified with a lot of reservation numbers, clearly done by the same registrar of the domain name in <.sucks>. Suddenly, new online pages have emerged, with the same structure and bad comments about renowned brands. A system of resale at prices between $199 and $599 is also in place.
The question of the dispute resolution about the <.suck> is complex, since the situation raises issues relating to freedom of expression.

Two recent cases with two opposite outcomes illustrate this complexity. The domain names <mirapex.sucks> and <bioderma.sucks> were both registered by the same registrar and are both the subject of UDRP complaints. In response to these two complaints, the defendant based his argument on freedom of expression. For <mirapex.sucks>, the complaint was unsuccessful, on the contrary, for <bioderma.sucks>, the name transfer was ordered.

In the case of <bioderma.sucks>, the expert had taken into consideration the fact that the registrar didn’t use the domain name for bad comments on the trademark in question but was simply a third party who registered the domain name seeking to resell it. The reseller was a company located in the Turks and Caicos Islands whose activity is the purchase and resale of names in <.sucks>. The latter had no way of verifying if the bad comments were authentic. Especially because those comments seemed to have been added only after the complaint was filed.

On the other hand, in the decision on <mirapex.sucks>, reserved by the same company, the transfer was refused. The expert gave special attention to the nature of the <.sucks> and to the freedom of expression, while underlining the insufficiency of the argumentation of the applicant.
One thing is sure: prevention is better than cure, therefore it would preferable to register a brand in the extension <.sucks>, on a purely defensive basis.

Read More

The opportunity to add a registered domain name to the complaint after the filing

domain nameIf Virgin Enterprises Limited (“Virgin”) was notably known by the French public as a megastore on the Champs Elysées, now permanently shut down; the company, on the contrary, is still very active in many different sectors such as travel, under the Virgin Voyages brand, or even in the mobile sector under the Virgin Mobile brand. As we all know, success is often followed by harm. Having detected the registration of domain names by a third party taking over its brands, namely <virgincruisevoyages.com>, <virginmediabiz.com>, <virginmobilewifi.com>, Virgin has filed an UDRP complaint against these names, July 23, 2020.

On the day the complaint was notified, July 27, the name <govirginvoyages.com> was registered and the applicant added it to his complaint. The expert reminds that a complaint can indeed cover several names, if they are registered by the same person or under the same name or under a common control.

In order to accept the request for consolidation, the expert takes in consideration the following elements:
* the names <govirginvoyages.com> and <virgincruisevoyages.com> that refer to identical sites and the same email contact;

* the registrant of the name <govirginvoyages.com> has the same first name as the registrant of of <virgincruisevoyages.com>, <virginmovilewifi.com> and <virginmediabiz.com>.

Thus, it seems possible to add a reserved name to a complaint after the filing.

Subsequently, the expert was able to conclude without difficulty that there was no legitimate interest of the defendant and bad faith. The defendant did not respond to the complaint.

All names resolved to sites copying those of Virgin and two of them, in particular, <virgincruisevoyages.com> and virginmobilewifi.com> were used in the context of fraud, aimed at “obtaining public information for commercial gain”. In addition, the registrar already used, in the past, other domain names related to Virgin’s brands. The expert said that “the use of some of the domain names involved in conducting an e-mail phishing scam is the type of illegal activity that is clearly considered to be the proof of bad faith”. This decision also highlights the need to be vigilant when mail servers – also known as “servers MX” – are set on a domain name. When such servers are set up, the reservee can send to anyb0ody e-mails from an address that includes the domain name, and endanger the company and its consumers; just checking if a website is in place on the names cybersquatted is not enough.

In this case, each single name was associated with a fake site and two of them had in addition a mail server that was carrying an e-mail fraud campaign. Thus, would be preferable to set up adequate surveillance on the company’s brands and to carefully analyze those, which are closest to the brand in order to take the right actions once the registration is detected.

 

 

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Oct. 23, 2020, aff. D2020-1921, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Aladin Chidi, NA / Aladin Tg.

Read More

A famous applicant yes, but in the common name : the difficult proof of bad faith

(WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, August 4, 2020, Case No. D2020-1543, Fundación Trinidad Alfonso Mocholí, Fundación de la Comunitat Valenciana v. Jack Zhang)

 

In a UDRP proceeding, the Complainant is required to establish that the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. To do so, it is imperative to establish the respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s rights.

 

The charity organisation, Fundacion Trinidad Alfonso Mocholi, filed a UDRP complaint because of the registration of the domain name <juanroig.com>. This association was founded by Mr. Juan Roig, who is particularly well known in Spain as a businessman. He presides over the largest supermarket chain in Spain and has already been received by the Spanish royal couple.

 

The association’s activities include programs to encourage the participation of children in sports activities. It carries out this activity under the name “Mecenazgo Deportivo Juan Roig”. It is also the owner of a semi-figurative Spanish trademark “MECENAZGO DEPORTIVO JUAN ROIG” registered on April 17, 2020 for goods and services in classes 16, 25 and 41.

The defendant in the action, located in the United States, is active in the purchase and sale of domain names. It reserved the domain name in question on October 27, 2014, before the registration of the plaintiff’s trademark. The disputed domain name does not refer to any site offering goods or services, but is offered for sale for an amount of 2,500 USD.

 

The expert admits the existence of a risk of confusion between the domain name and the subsequent trademark. Let us remind that the date of registration of the trademark is irrelevant for the analysis of the likelihood of confusion: only a “side-by-side” comparison is made. The expert takes into account, among other things, the fact that the expression “Mecenazgo Deportivo” is generic, since it means “Sports Sponsorship”.

 

The question of the legitimate interest of the defendant then arises.

The complainant states that it did not authorize the Respondent to reserve the disputed domain name. In return, the respondent argues that the practice of buying and reselling domain names is not illegitimate. He explains that a search on the LinkedIn site shows that there are more than 1200 members registered in Spain whose name is, or includes, “Juan Roig”. He argues that about 10% of the world’s population is on LinkedIn and infers that there are about 12,000 people in Spain who would be named Juan Roig. For him, the domain name is therefore composed of generic terms. This daring mathematical calculation is naturally not admitted by the expert, who notes the strong presence of people named Juan Roig in Spain or Latin America.

However, the expert believes that it would be necessary to demonstrate that the domain name is really used for its descriptive meaning in order to be able to refute a prima facie case of absence of legitimate interest. This was not the case here since the name is simply offered for sale, without any other use. The expert, therefore, asserts that the absence of legitimate interest is well demonstrated.

Furthermore, we may wonder about the descriptive use of a patronymic name, which seems complicated, unless a site is dedicated to statistics on the use of the name or to a specific person.

 

Regarding bad faith, the plaintiff argues that it was not a coincidence that the defendant registered the disputed domain name shortly after Mr. Juan Roig was ranked as the second wealthiest person in Spain.

The expert reminds that, in theory, bad faith will not be recognized when the trademark invoked in support of the complaint is subsequent to the registration of the disputed domain name. Except when it is proven that the defendant knew about the plaintiff and his emerging or future trademark rights.

The defendant purchases domain names in volume and could have been aware of the existence of the plaintiff if the domain name in question had been reserved as a result of its enter into the public domain (known as “drop catching”). But, this is a new registration. However, the expert notes that the defendant refused an offer to buy back the name, submitted by a third party, for the sum of 300 USD, which is almost 15 times higher than the price of a name reservation in <.com>. It is, therefore, clear that he wanted to make a more profitable profit from it.

 

Nevertheless, the defendant argues that he had never heard of the plaintiff or his trademark and that most of the publications that are supposed to support this fame are in Spanish language, which he does not speak.

 

The expert notes that some of these publications are in English and come from well-known newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, but these publications are aimed at a limited audience, from the financial services sector.

The expert deduces that despite Mr. Juan Roig’s reputation, this is only demonstrated in Spain and he notes that his name is reasonably common among Spanish speakers.

The complaint is therefore dismissed.

 

Thus, the popularity of a public person is not sufficient to demonstrate the bad faith of the holder in the registration and use of a domain name. It is necessary to try to put oneself in the place of the reservist. If he comes from abroad, is he reasonably likely to know the person whose fame is being claimed?

Read More

Adaptation of decisions in case of identity theft’s suspicion

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, June 15, 2020, No. D2020-0646, Wintrust Financial Corporation v. Domain Administrator, Se PrivacyGuardian.org / Name Redacted

 

WIPO’s case law databases have no fewer than 170 hits when there is a research for decisions against “Name Redacted”, a term used when experts decide not to include the name of the defendant in the complaint. This occurs when the defendant appears to have impersonated a third party and in order to protect his or her personal data.

 

Recently, in a case involving the domain name <wintrustexpertoptions.com>, an obvious case of cybersquatting where the defendant tried to make the public believe that they were related to Wintrust Financial Corporation, the expert made the decision not to mention the name of the defendant in the decision.

 

In fact, in the course of the proceedings, the Center received an e-mail from a third party regarding the identity of the Respondent, indicating that it was a case of identity theft. This communication was forwarded to the parties by the Center, which also contacted the defendant at another e-mail address, which had not been taken into account at the start of the proceedings, to ask them if they wished to file a response to the complaint, which they did not.

 

Even if the issue of impersonation is not proven with certainty, the expert, as a precaution, chooses not to expose the name of the defendant in the decision.

 

However, the expert includes an unpublished annex to the decision that includes the name of the defendant. An annex that the Center may forward to the Registrar. This technique has also been used in other decisions (V. ASOS plc. v. Name Redacted, WIPO, No. D2017-1520; Allen & Overy LLP v. Name Redacted, WIPO, D2019-1148).

 

In addition to the procedural adaptations that identity theft generates, this decision is an opportunity to remind the right holders to be vigilant with the naming charter established for the registration of domain names. For example, an inactive name reserved in the name of a subsidiary could appear legitimate. However, it could be a case of identity theft. This is why it is imperative, in order to protect the company, its managers and its customers, to establish the rules of good conduct regarding the reservation of domain names. In particular, the e-mail address used must be a generic address in the name of the company, such as domainames@nomdelentreprise.com, and a dedicated registrar must be designated.

Read More

Liability of online platforms operators : where do we stand?

Operators of online hosting platforms will soon know exactly what responsibility to assume for illegal or hateful content published on these platforms. The current climate seems to be very conducive to clarifying the nature and extent of their liability.

In this respect, two schools of thought clash: for some, it is necessary to impose obligations to control the content published on these platforms, but for others, this would reflect the attribution of a new role to these operators, which has not been given to them on a basic level.

There would be a risk that platform operators would become judges of online legality and a risk of ‘over-withdrawing’ content stored by them at the request of users of their platforms, to the extent that they also remove legal content,” said Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, who presented his conclusions before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on July 20, referring to request for  preliminary ruling a preliminary ruling made by the Bundesgerichtshof, the German Federal Court of Justice, on two disputes brought before the German national courts.

The first dispute (1) was between Frank Peterson, a music producer, and the video-sharing platform YouTube and its parent company Google over the users posting , of several phonograms without Mr. Peterson’s permission, to which he claims to hold rights.

In the second (2), Elsevier Inc, an editorial group, sued Cyando AG, in connection with its operation of the Uploaded hosting and file-sharing platform, over the uploading, again by users without its authorization, of various works to which Elsevier holds exclusive rights.

 

In said requests for preliminary ruling, it is a question of knowing whether the operator of content platforms such as YouTube, performs acts of communication to the public pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, a directive that was invoked against YouTube.

The answer is negative, according to the Advocate General, who invites the CJEU to bear in mind that the legislator of the Union has specified that the “mere provision of facilities intended to enable or carry out a communication does not in itself constitute a communication within the meaning of [this directive]”. According to the Advocate General, it is, therefore, important to distinguish a person performing the act of “communication to the public”, within the meaning of the Article 3(1) of the Directive 2001/29, from service providers, such as YouTube and Cyando, who, by providing the “facilities” enabling this transmission to take place, act as intermediaries between that person and the public. On the other hand, a service provider goes beyond the role of intermediary when it actively intervenes in the communication to the public – if it selects the content transmitted, or presents it to the public in a different way from that envisaged by the author.

Such a conclusion would lead to the non-application of the Article 3(1) of the Directive 2001/29 to those people facilitating the performance, of unlawful acts of “communication to the public”, by third parties.

 

Moreover, it is a question of knowing whether the safe harbour – in the case of “provision of an information society service consisting in storing information provided by a recipient of the service” – provided for in the Article 14 of the the Directive on electronic commerce n°2000/31 is in principle accessible to these platforms (according to the Advocate General, it is).

This provision provides that the provider of such a service cannot be held liable for the information that it stores at the request of its users, unless the provider, after becoming aware or conscious of the illicit nature of this information, has not immediately removed or blocked it.

However, according to the Attorney General, by limiting itself to a processing of this information that is neutral with respect to its content without acquiring intellectual control over this content, the provider such as YouTube, cannot be aware of the information it stores at the request of the users of its service.

The CJEU will, therefore, have to rule on these issues in the coming months.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in 2019, the Union legislator adopted the Directive No. 2019/790, not applicable to the facts, on copyright and related rights in the single digital market, modifying in particular the previous Directive of 2001. A new liability regime was introduced in Article 17 for operators of online hosting platforms.

Sources :

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/cp200096fr.pdf

 

  • C-682/18 Frank Peterson v Google LLC, YouTube LLC, YouTube Inc., Google Germany GmbH

 

C-683/18 Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG

Read More

Sale of the domain name extensions: .cars, .car and .auto at auction

The domain name extensions (gTLDs) “.cars”, “.car” and “.auto” are about to be auctioned on July 13, 2020. Launched in 2015, these extensions have been at the forefront of innovation in the domain name and automotive marketing. They have been used around the world by dealerships, startups and major automotive technology companies.

After a five-year partnership, and more than $11 million raised, XYZ, a company offering new domain name options, and Uniregistry, both a registrar and a domain name registry, have jointly decided to divest this investment.

 

The auction will be conducted by Innovative Auctions, an independent auction consulting firm, and all assets to be auctioned will include the extensions in question, as well as all intellectual property rights, trademarks, social network accounts and high-value domain names such as <electric.car> and <rental.car>, which are currently reserved by Uniregistry.

It should be noted that this is the first gTLD auction in which anyone can participate. Interested parties can contact cars@innovativeauctions.com for more information.

Read More

Figurative trademarks: be aware of the extent of your protection

The judges of the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling on a referral from the Court of Cassation, adopted a strict approach to similarities between a figurative trademark and a later , semi-figurative trademark in a dispute between two companies specialized in ready-to-wear clothing.

 

The company Compagnie Financière de Californie (“Compagnie de Californie”), which specializes in street wear chic clothing, is the owner of the trademarks on the sign, in particular for clothing products.

In 2013, the company noted that International Sport Fashion, also active in the fashion industry, had registered and used a trademark that it believes to be similar to its own:

 

The signs in question have the shape of an eagle’s head, without detail, reproduced in black and white within a circle.

In order to obtain compensation for the damage it considers to have suffered, Compagnie de Californie brought an action for infringement.

 

After having been dismissed at first instance and on appeal, the company turned to the Court of Cassation, which referred the case back to the trial judges after partial cassation.

The referring Court of Appeal first compared the trademarks in question. Its analysis is rigorous, particularly from a conceptual standpoint: it considers that the trademark of Compagnie de Californie refers to “the dark side of the bird of prey while the other refers to the image of a much less aggressive bird” (certainly due to the presence of a closed beak).

 

The court points out, among other things, that visually, these birds’ heads are not facing the same direction and that one has the beak closed and the other open.

 

On the phonetic level, the court notes, unsurprisingly, that the mark at issue will be pronounced “Eagle Square” in reference to the verbal element it contains, which will not be the case for the earlier mark.

 

The court, therefore, considers that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks.

 

Next, it examines the question of the exploitation by International Sport Fashion of its mark for clothing products. The Court takes into account all possible elements such as the packaging which contains the goods. The name “EAGLE SQUARE” is affixed to the packaging; it, therefore, considers that there is no likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers.

It also states that the contested sign which appears by itself on some of the articles is each time bicoloured, “inducing a caesura in the sign”, which gives an overall impression, very different from the earlier mark.

 

The court, therefore, did not grant the applications of Compagnie de Californie.

 

Thus, with respect to figurative marks, it is necessary to meticulously estimate the chances of success of an infringement action, since great similarities are generally required to recognize the likelihood of confusion.

This case shows that even marks with a comparable style (presence of a bird in a circle, with only the head entirely painted black) can coexist in the market.

It is questionable whether the Court of Appeal would have taken a different approach had International Sport Fashion affixed the only black and white eagle head to its products. The question also arises as to whether the outcome might have been partially different had  California Company also registered, as a trademark, its coloured eagle (which can be found in red on its official website https://www.compagniedecalifornie.com/).

 

Therefore, in addition to a detailed analysis of the chances of success before bringing an action, it is also necessary to protect the trademark as exploited, taking into account its variants, so as to benefit from the widest possible scope of protection.

Read More

The lovelinesss of the European Union: to obtain in one Member State a declaration of counterfeiting for acts committed in another Member State

CJEU – September 5, 2019

AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree c/. Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arriba,

 

It is possible to bring an actionbefore a national court with the purpose proving an infringement of the EU trademark in that Member State, even if the third party has advertised and marketed his goods in another Member State.

That is the answer given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the preliminary ruling question concerning the interpretation of Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of February 26, 2009 on the European Union trade mark.

That reference was made in the context of a dispute between the parties:

The applicants : AMS Neve, a company founded in the United Kingdom, for manufacturing and marketing audio equipment, represented by its director Mr Crabtree.  Barnett Waddingham Trustees “BW Trustees” is the trustee;

versus

The defendants : Heritage Audio, a Spanish company also marketing audio equipment, represented by Mr Rodríguez Arribas

 

concerning an infringement action for alleged infringement of rights conferred, inter alia, by an European Union trade mark.

The applicants are the owners of the European Union trademark and of two trademarks registered in the United Kingdom.

Having discovered that Heritage Audio was marketing imitations of AMS Neve products bearing or referring to a sign identical or similar to the said EU and national trademarks and was advertising those products, they brought an action for infringement of an EU trade mark before the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court in the United Kingdom.

In order to prove the infringement in the United Kingdom, the applicants provided the documents in support of their action, including in particular the contents of Heritage Audio’s website and its Facebook and Twitter accounts, an invoice issued by Heritage Audio to an individual, resident in the United Kingdom.

Then, in order to prove the  infringement in the European Union, they provided screen shots from that website showing offers for the sale of audio equipment bearing a sign identical or similar to the European Union trademark. They underlined the fact that these offers are in English and that a section entitled “where to buy” is available on the website, listing distributors in various countries. In addition, they argued that Heritage Audio accepts orders from any Member State of the European Union.

While the Court agreed to rule on the protection of national intellectual property rights, it found that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the infringement of the EU trade mark at issue.

 

The appellants appealed against that judgment to the United Kingdom Court of Appeal, which decided to enforce a stay on proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

– Does a national court of a Member State A have jurisdiction to rule on an action for infringement of the EU trademark on account of its advertising and marketing of goods carried out in Member State B?

– If so, what criteria should be taken into account in determining whether the company has taken active measures regarding the infringement?

 

The answers given by the CJEU are as follows:

 

– the plaintiff, depending on whether he chooses to bring the infringement action before the EU trademark court of the defendant’s domicile or before that of the territory in which the act of infringement was committed or threatened to be committed, determines the extent of the territorial jurisdiction of the court seized ;

 

o when the infringement action is based on Article 97(1), it shall cover acts of infringement committed on the territory of the Union (where the action is brought before the court of the defendant’s domicile or, if the defendant is not domiciled in the European Union, in the State in which he is professionally established);

o when it is based on paragraph 5 of the same Article, it shall be limited to acts of infringement committed or threatening to be committed within the territory of a single Member State, namely the Member State of the court seized ;

 

in order to ensure that the acts of which the defendant is accused were committed in the EU , it is necessary to determine where the commercial content was actually made accessible to consumers and professionals for whom it was intended. Whether such advertising and offers subsequently had the effect of purchasing the defendant’s goods, is on the other hand, irrelevant.

 

In the present case, the advertisements and offers referred to by the applicants were aimed at consumers and/or professionals, in particular in the United Kingdom.

In those circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have the right to bring an infringement action against that third party before a EU trademark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom that advertising and those offers for sale are directed are located, notwithstanding that that third party took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.

This possibility of bringing an infringement action before any competent national court  to rule on acts of infringement committed in any Member State is very useful in particular to optimise the costs of proceedings, depending on the national regulations. France, for example, offers irrefutable methods of collecting evidence, such as a bailiff’s report, to establish facts of infringement, at attractive prices.

Read More

UDRP Procedure: manage a domain name portfolio with attention

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, March 10, 2020, No. D2019-3175, Orfeva SARL v. Vianney d’Alançon.

 

The company Orfeva has specialized for many years in baptism medals. Since 2010, it has been using the domain name ” medailledebapteme.fr ” as the domain name for its official website. Orfeva is also the owner of the French trademark “MEDAILLEDEBAPTEME.FR”.

Orfeva filed a UDRP complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain name <medailledebapteme.com>, claiming that it infringes its rights, and asking for a transfer.

This domain name was initially registered on July 21, 2010 by Mr. de Graaf, legal representative of the applicant, then, due to a non-renewal in 2016 – for reasons not explained – this name fell back into the public domain and was reserved on September 26, 2016 by Mr. Vianney d’Alançon to designate his own website for the sale of jewelry and silverware. Mr. Vianney d’Alançon has been the owner of the French trademark “1000 MEDAILLES DE BAPTEME.FR” since December 2015.

The applicant argued that the defendant registered the disputed domain name with perfect knowledge of the existence and use of its earlier mark. Consequently, it considers that the defendant sought to generate confusion with its earlier mark in order to try to divert consumers to its own internet site, by offering them the same goods on a very similar site. In addition, the applicant states that has filed an applicaion by letter, through its Counsel, for the restitution of the disputed domain name, without receiving a reply from the defendant.

The defendant, for its part, maintains that it purchased the domain name <medailledebapteme.com> because it is descriptive of his products and not in order to disrupt the applicant’s business. He argued that the expression ‘baptismal medal’ in everyday language cannot be the subject of a monopoly, being the generic, necessary and customary designation of baptismal medals in the jewellery sector.. Furthermore, he adds that he replied to the letter from the applicant’s counsel, refusing to uphold his claims.  Finally, the defendant argues that there has been no demonstration of customer poaching. In that regard, it states in particular that the applicant’s business is not disrupted by the operation by a third party of the domain name <medaille-de-bapteme.fr> which predates the applicant’s domain name <medaille-de-bapteme.fr>.

The applicant’s position is not followed by the expert who considers that the domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith.

Indeed, the name is descriptive of the Respondent’s activity, which justifies the registration of the domain name. The applicant’s knowledge of prior trade mark rights cannot affect the legitimacy of that registration.

Furthermore, the expert endorses the Respondent’s argument that it was not intended to disrupt the applicant’s business, pointing out that several companies specialising in the sale of christening medals and using very similar domain names coexist peacefully.

 

The expert concludes that the complaint must be rejected. In addition, he states that there is no evidence or reason to suspect any customer poaching or disruption of the applicant’s business operations.  A court of law may rule on this matter, if necessary.

It should therefore be borne in mind that the abandonment of a domain name describing the activity, especially if it includes the highly prized top level domain “.com”, will most certainly be registered by a third party as soon as it falls into the public domain. Indeed, this type of name is generally very coveted, especially because it can enjoy high visibility on search engine results, corresponding to the keywords that Internet users can search for.

The same applies to domain names that reproduce the company’s brand and especially its corporate brand. Even if it is decided to no longer use a name, it may be advisable to keep it as a defensive measure to prevent a third party from taking it over.

Finally, it should be recalled that the parties must be attentive to the arguments they present before the WIPO, at the risk of departing from the UDRP’s legal regime. Unlike the judge, the expert does not have the power to declare a trademark invalid, nor to conduct investigations for unfair competition.

Keywords: generic designation of domain name – bad faith – trademark right – domain name – unfair competition

Read More

Coronavirus: the measures implemented by intellectual property offices to deal with the health crisis

The whole world’s been in slow motion since the Covid-19 virus spread. Thus, state governments are doing their best to maintain the continuity of the administration despite the implementation of containment measures,. Since an ordinance of March 16, the offices have decided to extend procedural deadlines that expired during this period of health crisis.

 

Here’s a list of the provisions that offices have put in place in order to allow better management of procedures related to trademarks, as well as patents.

 

 

  • INPI, The National Institute of Intellectual Property

The INPI decided in its order n°2020-32 of March 16, that the deadlines for proceedings relating to patents, trademarks and designs will be extended to 4 months for procedures concerning patents, trademarks and designs. However, the deadlines for priority for international extensions, for payments for patent and supplementary protection certificate filing, which are subject to supranational provisions, have been excluded.

 

The order adds that “in the event of failure to comply with a deadline, the health crisis will be taken into account when examining the procedures for appealing for restoration or for a forfeiture statement to the INPI. »

 

It should be noted that the bill put in place by the government was adopted by Parliament on March 2: the aim is to enable the Government to legislate by ordinance in many areas, including that of intellectual property. This ordinance thus includes provisions concerning the extension of the deadlines stemming from the Intellectual Property Code, including those relating to the opposition procedure.

In accordance with the new order dated March 25 (No. 2020-306), the INPI extended the delay of deadlines for procedures concerning trademark oppositions, trademark renewals or design extensions : it allows to benefit from thecorresponding grace period or for the filing of an administrative or judicial appeal.

In this way, it extends the deadlines which expire between March 12th and June 23rd. The statutory deadline for taking action runs until July 23rd if the initial deadline was set for one month, and until August 23rd if it was for two months or more.

The INPI is already planning to extend its deadlines until July. In the weeks to come, it will be necessary to closely monitor the news from the office.

 

  • EUIPO, European Union Intellectual Property Office

The Office had stated in its Decision No. EX-20-3 issued on March 16, that all deadlines expiring between 9 March and 30 April 2020 included, would be automatically extended until May 1st, 2020. Since May 1st is a public holiday, the deadlines were therefore extended until May 4, 2020.

 

EUIPO subsequently explained its decision on March 19. By the expression “all deadlines”, it meant all procedural deadlines, whether fixed by the Office or of a statutory nature. “They are stipulated directly in the Implementing Regulation,” with the exception of the deadlines relating to matters not covered by certain regulations, such as that on the European Union trademark (2017/1001). It is therefore applicable to all procedures, whether for trademarks, patents, renewals or opposition proceedings.

More recently, on April 29, WIPO’s Executive Director issued the Decision No. EX-20-4, extending all deadlines expiring between May 1st and May 17, to May 18, in order to further support and assist users during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

  • WIPO, the International Intellectual Property Organization

In the opinion (No. 7/2020) issued on March 19, WIPO introduced possible remedies for failure to comply with the deadlines under the Madrid system and modalities for the extension of the deadlines when the national offices are closed.

 

With regard to the international registration of trademarks, WIPO added that the extension of the deadlines is automatic in the event that an IP office is not open to the public.  Therefore, if a deadline for a provisional refusal expires on the day an office is closed, it will be extended on the first day following the opening of the office.

 

The opinion adds that, with regard to trademarks, applicants may request the continuation of the procedure without having to justify themselves, in particular for all matters relating to an international trademark application, a request for registration, a request for modification of a subsequent designation, etc…

 

WIPO has also recently announced automatic extensions of the deadlines in cases where a national IP office is closed to the public and in the event of disruption in postal or mail services.

 

In a press release of March 16 and 19, USPTO had announced that it was waiving the late fees in certain situations for applicants affected by the coronavirus, as well as the requirement of an original handwritten signature in ink for certain documents.

 

On April 28, USPTO announced an extension of the deadlines up to May 31, 2020. This means that some actions that were due in this period can be postponed to 1 June. The USPTO gives an extension for certain deadlines between March 27 and April 30. This period runs to 30 days from the original deadline.

 

In order to obtain the extension, applicants or patentees must “submit a declaration that at least one person responsible for the delay has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to office closures, financial problems, inaccessibility of records, illness of a family member, or other similar circumstances. »

 

  • In other countries of the world

-The Canadian Intellectual Property Office is extending the deadline to July 6th, 2020.

The German Patent and Trademark Office affirmed in a statement dated May 11 that the extension of the deadlines will be until June 2.

UKIPO, the United Kingdom Office declared on May 7, 2020 that all deadlines falling on or posterior to March 24, 2020 (being those interrupted days) will be extended to the following interrupted day. The period of interruption will end on July 29th. This extension applies to most deadlines for patents, trademarks, supplementary protection certificates and designs.

The Benelux Organisation for Intellectual Property is the most rigid office. Indeed, in a press release dated March 16, it discloses that trademark applications referring to coronavirus will be refused registration. However, in a press release of March 20, it revised their position by saying that “the BOIP will not withdraw any application or procedure because a given deadline has not been met. This also applies to opposition proceedings not filed on time or to payments not made on time”. These measures will be applicable until May 20, 2020, at least.

 

The WIPO website regularly updates information on the provisions adopted by various intellectual property offices in order to keep abreast of the various communications that offices can make around the world. With the introduction of deconfinement measures in some countries, including France, it will be necessary to closely follow the future news.

 

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries around the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Read More

Will trademark non-use due to quarantine be considered a valid reason?

Due to the current health situation, the majority of companies have reduced their activity. This suspension or reduction of activity will have an impact on all intellectual property and may in particular result in the non-use of the trademark by the owner, leading to its forfeiture.

In fact, in accordance with the French law, and more specifically Article L714-5 of the Intellectual Property Code, if a trademark is not used for an uninterrupted period of five years for the goods and services covered by the registration, the court may, order the revocation of the trademark and the cancellation of its registration, at the request of an interested third party

The holder must therefore ensure that there is genuine use during this five-year period, i.e. real exploitation.

Thus, owners of trademarks that had not been exploited before the health crisis and quarantine could not start or resume exploitation. This unprecedented period could therefore lead to a period of non-use of more than five years.

However, the trademark owner may invoke a valid reason justifying the absence of serious use. According to established case law, this just reason must have a direct link with the trademark, be a circumstance outside the control of the trademark owner which has made the use of the trademark impossible or excessively difficult.

Therefore, it seems that the court may consider the restrictions imposed by the Government because of the pandemic as a valid excuse for the non-use of the trademark by the owner. Indeed, this obstacle, which is external to the owner’s will and which has made the use of the trademark extremely difficult, may be qualified as a just cause which will prevent or should lessen the delay of a possible revocation of the trademark.

Read More

The important business of domain names related to the coronavirus: simple speculation or sophisticated scams?

Individuals, entrepreneurs, professional url brokers… all are trying to buy and resell domain names with keywords related to the virus. The prices go up to several thousand euros. For example “corona-vaccination.fr” was bought on March 16 by a German developer, who is now offering it for sale for 9,000 euros.

The DomainTools search team began monitoring the terms related to Covid-19 in February 2019. From a slight increase in domain names using the terms “Coronavirus” and “COVID-19” at the begining, to registrations with a significant spike in recent weeks, it is clear that many of them are scams!

Among them, there is a site developed by a private individual offering the user to install an Android application called “CovidLock”, claiming to have a tool for monitoring the epidemic in real time.  In reality, it is a ransomware that asks for of $100  Bitcoins. Thanks to a proactive “hunt”, DomainTools detected it within hours of its creation, before it claimed any victims, and was able to obtain the scammer’s Bitcoin wallet.

Many domain names that should be watched closely at the height of the epidemic, are paving the way for resale at hefty prices or for cyber attacks!

 

Dreyfus can assist you in the management of your trademarks portfolios in all countries around the world. Do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Source: https://www.domaintools.com/resources/blog/covidlock-mobile-coronavirus-tracking-app-coughs-up-ransomware

Read More

A Complainant who claims an old domain name must demonstrate its use in order to justify prior rights

Source: WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Jan. 22, 2020, No. D2019-2992, Cyberplay Management Ltd v/ WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc./DIREX NV and Johann Mayer.

The Maltese company Cyberplay Management holds a gaming license for the purpose of operating an online casino. The latter owns the European trademark “Loki”, deposited on January 10, 2017 and registered on 6 September 2017, as well as the domain name <loki.com>, registered in 1992 and currently operated for online casino services. Said Company filed a UDRP Complaint before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against the domain names <lokicasino16.com>, <lokicasino17.com>, <lokicasino18.com>, <lokicasino19.com> and <lokicasino.com>, with the prejudice that they infringe its rights. Indeed, they associate the “Loki” trade mark with the term “casino”, which refers to its activity. The domain name <lokicasino.com> had been registered on May 16, 2016 and the other four domain names on January 11, 2017 (one day after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark,).

At the time the Complaint was filed, the Respondents were using these domain names in connection with an online casino. The Complainant considers that the Respondents registered and used the domain names in bad faith. The Respondents, for their part, claim that they never had knowledge of the applicant and its trademark. In addition, the Respondents have provided several screenshots, taken from the WayBack Machine website databases (archive.org) of the history of the Complinant’s website, showing the latter has never used the domain name <loki.com> for casino activities prior to the current period. For example, in 2006, it referred to a site allowing the user to find all types of events near their location.

The expert ruling on the case concludes that the complaint must be rejected, since the applicant did not provide evidence showing it was the holder of trademark rights for the sign “LOKI” at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The trademark application was filed after the registration of the domain name <lokicasino.com > owned by the Respondents. Furthermore, in regard to the law on unregistered trademarks (right of use), the Complaint does not submit any evidence of use of the sign “LOKI” in connection with the services of an online casino. Thus, it is important to recall that in order to prosper in a UDRP proceeding, it is imperative for a Complainant to submit evidence establishing, in particular, the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Complainant failed to provide such evidence. This decision also shows the growing importance of the archives proposed by WayBack Machine, which the judges now tend to accept as evidence (subject to justifying a bailiff’s report).

Read More

The rise of phishing in the midst of the coronavirus crisis

Source: Bank Info Security, Feb. 11, 2020

 

The global health crisis caused by the coronavirus is a favorable context for phishing techniques. Indeed, many organized gangs of cybercriminals are pretending to be health organizations by using fake domain names. As a result, they send an e-mail pretending to be a health-related entity, in which they ask the recipient to click on a link and enter or confirm a login and password. For example, cybercriminals therefore send phishing e-mails containing domain names similar to those used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For example, cybersquatters have incorporated the domain name “cdc-gov.org” which is similar to the official domain name “cdc.gov”.
Thus, these malicious e-mails encourage users to click on a link that looks like it contains information related to the issues related to the coronavirus. In fact, Internet users are redirected to a fake website where they have to enter a username and password. In other cases, cybercriminals send phishing e-mails looking like they originate from the World Health Organization, inviting users to a link to download a document on security measures against the spread of the virus. Of course, this is not the case and users are redirected to a pop-up screen asking for a username and a password. It should be noted that some cybercriminals adopt a different tactic by posing as entities linked to the world of economics, such as shipping companies or manufacturing industries. The coronavirus crisis can have an impact that extends beyond health concerns. Hence, it is necessary to be doubly careful about the extension of these phishing campaigns, alert may be raised for example by e-mails containing numerous spelling mistakes.

Read More

The <.eu> extension against Brexit

Source: EURid, registry of the <.eu> extension 

The United Kingdom parted from the European Union on January 31, 2020. As a result, the United Kingdom and the European Union entered into a transitio period, a period that has been announced to last till December 31, 2020. During this period, UK residents are still entitled to register and renew names in <.eu>.

However, once this period expires, they will no longer be able to register domain names with the <.eu> extension, nor to keep those they already hold, unless they comply with the requirements. The EURID originally detailed a comprehensive plan that was supposed to be implemented from November 1, 2019, the date when the United Kingdom was due to leave the European Union. It will finally apply at the end of the transition period, although no precise deadlines have yet been set. Once the transition period ends, only the following persons are entitled to register domain names in <.eu>: a citizen of the European Union, regardless of his/her place of residence; a natural person who is not a citizen of the Union European but is a resident of a Member State; a company established in the Union; or an organization established in the Union, without prejudice to the application of national law.

Thus, for already registered domain names, registrants will be able to update their contact details in an attempt to maintain their assets. In particular, they will have to indicate a country code of citizenship corresponding to a Member State of the European Union of 27 regardless of their residence or establish an entity legally established in one of the eligible Member States of the European Union of 27 or the EEA. All registrants who do not comply with these eligibility rules will see their domain names cancelles such the domain names will then be available for registration to all.

As non-compliant domain names will be withdrawn, it is appropriate to carry out a thorough analysis of registrants’ domain name portfolios to see whether any of their registrations is at risk.

Read More

Registries and artificial intelligence

A number of national top-level domain name registries such as the English registry Nominet have begun to use artificial intelligence to prevent abusive domain name registrations. Each registry uses its own system to suspend registrations if they believe there is suspicious activity on an IP address or if the identity of the applicant cannot be verified.

 

Ongoing assessment of the identity of the registrant thus helps reducing domain name infringements.

Read More

The liberalization of prices for domain names in <.com>: a possible increase from2021

The gTLD <.com> apparently occupies more than 40% of the domain name market share, according to statistics provided by the site www.domainnamestat.com. These results confirm that it is an unavoidable extension, especially because the <.com>, which addresses the whole world, is a strong rallying sign.

However, the negotiations in progress between ICANN and the <.com> registry, VeriSign, could lead to a modification of the approval on this extension, so that the <.com>’s price would increase by possibly 7% per year, from 2021 to 2024. In return for this right, VeriSign would pay $4 million to ICANN.

 

This negotiation is notably allowed by an amendment accepted by the American Department of Commerce, datedOctober 26, 2018, by which it was indicated that “in view of the more dynamic market of domain names, the Department considers it advisable to modify the cooperation agreement in order to provide flexibility in the prices related to the registration and renewal of domain names of the .com registry”.

If the price of <.com> increases, it will be relevant to see whether other TLDs recover some of its market shares, especially among the new gTLDs. If it seems unlikely that companies will abandon the names in <.com> that they already hold, newcomers to the market could possibly prefer other extensions.

Read More

Association between blockchain and domain names

Domain names appear to be a fertile ground for innovators related to blockchain technology.

 

 

Domain names and blockchain meet around the launch of the new extension “.luxe”, which contrary to what one might think was not created for the luxury industry (which already has its extension “.luxury” launched in 2014). The Ethereum foundation, whose aim is to promote blockchain technology, has entered into a partnership with the Minds + Machines (MMX) registry to create a new use for domain names, making “.luxe” the equivalent for cryptocurrency of what a classic extension represents for the IP address.

 

 

This association thus makes the IP addresses for the “.luxe” extension more intelligible.

 

 

Indeed, holders can link their domain name composed of the “.luxe” extension to their Ethereum account to replace their 40 characters identification number and make it easier to remember and use.

Read More

Provisional French patent applications for a simplified registration are now possible

With the publication of Decree No. 2020-15 adopted for the application of the PACTE law, it is now possible to file provisional patent applications as of July 1, 2020.

 

  • What is a Provisional Patent Application ?

A provisional application is a patent application whose registration procedure is simplified since certain filing requirements may be deferred in time. It is a procedure which permits the setting of an earlier filing date.

 

  • What is the Objective of a Provisional Application ?

This procedure is intended to allow companies to file patent applications before the French National Institute of Intellectual Property (“INPI”) in a simpler and less costly way. Therefore, it aims to facilitate access to IP protection, especially for start-ups and SMEs. The main objective is to provide a more flexible procedure for registration of patents.

 

  • How to File a Provisional Application?

With this Decree, it is possible to file a provisional patent application and defer the submission of the claims, the technical content of the invention and a copy of the prior filings.

On the other hand, the applicant is obliged, when filing the application, to indicate explicitly that this is a provisional application.

 

  • After Filing the Provisional Application

Within twelve months of the filing date of the provisional application, the applicant may request that his provisional application be transformed into a “normal” patent application (by completing the above-mentioned requirements that he had previously deferred) or that his application be converted into a utility certificate.

At the end of this period, the provisional patent application is withdrawn. Ultimately, this procedure allows applicants to gain additional time before deciding on the future of their applications.

 

  • Payment of the Filing Fees

The applicant must pay the filing fee within one month of the filing date. However, the applicant may pay the fee for the search report within one month of making a request to turn the patent application into a normal one.

 

 

This less stringent registration procedure will allow applicants to apply for patents in a more flexible way, under certain conditions. It will render it possible to fix the date of creation of an invention and then to determine what action will be taken later on with regard to its protection.

Read More

The reform of the tax regime for patentable products: “the French-style IP BOX“

The 2019 Finance Act harmonizes French and European tax rules in order to best promote the investment of patentable creations and inventions. We are talking about the French IP Box.

Thus, the taxation regime for the products of patents and similar industrial property rights is brought into line with OECD provisions.

While Irelandwas the first country to set up this system (1973), other countries followed suit, such as Belgium, China and, more recently, the United Kingdom (2013).

The principle allows companies to benefit from a tax advantage on their intellectual property assets with a tax rate that amount to 10% instead of 33% previously.

 

 

 

 

 

Eligible assets

The assets that are eligible for this plan are:

 

  • Patents and patentable inventions
  • Certificates of utility
  • Plant variety certificates
  • Copyrighted software

 

To be eligible, inventions must have been filed. Taking into account that the regime is open to software protected by copyright. It should also be added that this plan is applicable to annual net income calculated after deducting research and development expenses. The aim is to encourage research and development efforts in relation to the overall effect, i.e. in relation to all the investments that the company can make.

 

To be eligible for the reduction rate, the company will have to provide several elementsto establish its file such as:

  • Eligible assets
  • The rule for determining the protection of the proportion of net income taxable at a reduced rate
  • The method for allocating research and development expenses.

 

This makes it possible to monitor the company’s expenses and, above all, to justify the request for a reduction in the tax rate. It will be necessary to submit this file to the tax authorities under penalty of a 5% penalty. 

 

The tax rate

The regime consists in deducting first the proceeds of sale and concession as well as research and development expenses and then, in a second step, calculating from this deduction the net result in order to obtain the net result of the assets on the basis of the Nexus ratio. 

 

What is the Nexus ratio? 

The idea is to limit “the preferential regime in proportion to the part of the expenditure relating to intellectual property. »  

 

This is how the OECD defines this ratio. This is intended to sanction patents acquired and research and development costs subcontracted to affiliated companies. It should be noted that research and development costs in third party companies will not penalize the Nexus ratio. This ratio will be calculated on a cumulative expenditure basis.

Some consider this ratio a “not irrefutable presumption.” 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The advantage of this regime is that it will encourage companies to their research and development in France and produce quality intellectual property assets that generate income.

Read More

Webinar April 7, 2020: Internet and Compliance (part 1)

Webinar : Internet and Compliance (part 1)

 

The rules of the game have changed,

strategies to protect the company and its leaders.

 

 

 

 

The legal, regulatory and fiscal constraints (resulting in particular from the Sapin 2 Law, the LCEN or the EU
Directive of 23 October 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers) that weigh on companies are increasingly rigorous. Companies must implement a governance policy capable of minimizing their responsibility and exposure to their customers, shareholders and the competent authorities.

 

 

Among the aspects to be considered in the context of this compliance are domain names. While they are an undeniable corporate asset, they are also vectors of risk: phishing, fraud against the president, fake sites, identity theft, forged e-mails, and so on.

 

In the event of a breach, they can also damage the reputation of the company and its managers, resulting in a loss of customers. It is therefore imperative to put in place the appropriate strategies to anticipate the dangers, react effectively in the event of an attack and ultimately protect the company.

 

The current situation linked to the coronavirus epidemic is increasing the risks, with the number of frauds increasing considerably while companies are disorganized and vulnerable.

We propose to analyse these issues with you, sharing our experience. In particular, we will be able to answer the following questions:

– What are the obligations of companies with regard to compliance?

– What are the risks to be anticipated?

– What strategies should be implemented to do so?

– What are the control points?

– What levers should be implemented to react effectively in the event of a proven breach?

Read More

Proceedings for invalidity and revocation before the INPI

As of April 1, 2020, it is now possible to bring actions for cancellation on grounds of invalidity and revocation on grounds of nonuse of trademarks at the French trademark Office –INPI.

Among the new developments resulting from the implementation of European Directive 2015/2436 of December 16, 2015, (known as the “Trademark reform Package”) into French law, the new procedures for the cancellation on grounds of invalidity and revocation on grounds of nonuse of trademarks are those that will undoubtedly change the landscape of intellectual property law in France.

The European directive placed an obligation on member states to create an administrative procedure to bring invalidity and revocation proceedings. The aim of this measure being to facilitate challenges to registrations in order to declutter the trademark register.

In France, since April 1, 2020, these actions can be brought before the French Trademark Office INPI, bringing French trademark law increasingly closer to European law. Until now, only the Court was able to hear these cases. From now on, the competence is shared between some specialized courts and the INPI.

How is this to be done?

The division of competences is set out in Article L.716-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code.   With the exception of applications for invalidity based on a prior Copyright, Design right or Personality right (which must be brought before a competent judicial Court), INPI has exclusive jurisdiction for applications for invalidity where no other legal issue arises based on an absolute ground, and applications for invalidity (again where no other legal issue arises) based on the following relative grounds :

– A trademark right

– A corporate name

– An appellation of origin or geographical indication

– The name of a local authority or public entity.

 

The judicial court has exclusive jurisdiction over counterclaims for invalidity or revocation of rights, applications for invalidity or revocation of rights on any grounds whatsoever where the application is connected with another action falling within its jurisdiction and, finally, applications for invalidity of rights brought as a principal claim on the following relative grounds:

– Copyright

– Design

– Personality rights.

 

In order to avoid any delaying measures, it is provided that the principle of “res judicata” will apply to such decisions of the Director of INPI and of the judicial court.

The French legislator has gone beyond the provisions of the European Directive, which only requires Member States to confer jurisdiction on the Trademark Offices with respect to certain grounds of invalidity (invalidity based on absolute grounds or on an earlier similar or identical trademark).

Which trademark registration can be challenged?

An application for invalidity or revocation may be filed against a registered French trademark or on the French part of an international trademark.

What is the procedure before the INPI?

 

 

Like the new trademark opposition procedure, the invalidity or revocation procedure follows the principle of a fair hearing. Following the examination phase, which starts from the day on which the action was filed, and as soon as the action is considered admissible, the owner has a period of 2 months to submit his observations in the case of an invalidity action or to provide proof of use in a revocation action.

The applicant has then one month to file a response. The parties may make up to three contradictory written exchanges at the end of which, and where appropriate, an oral presentation of the observations may be requested by either party but also requested by the INPI.

Depending on the number of exchanges carried out, this investigation phase may last between two and six months. The INPI then has a maximum period of three months to render its decision.

Thus, the total duration of the procedure should last a maximum of nine months from the date of notification of the action to the adverse party, which is much faster than the legal action hitherto open to the applicant.

A stay of proceedings may be requested jointly by the parties for a period of four months, renewable twice. It may also be suspended at the initiative of the INPI, in particular pending the receipt of information and elements likely to have an impact on the outcome of the dispute or the situation of the parties.

Finally, unlike court proceedings, the applicant need not demonstrate a specific legal interest. This will therefore allow a greater number of actions and give rise to new strategies for the release of rights.

In conclusion, the introduction of these new administrative procedures by the implementation of the “Trademark reform Package” in France provides a fast and inexpensive procedure, against a registered nuisance trademark avoiding the much more restrictive judicial process.

Read More

UDRP Procedure: abuse of right or, when the complaint is brought in bad faith

Advice Group is an Italian company founded in 2006 and specialized in marketing. It is based in Turin but has offices in Rome, Bari and subsidiaries in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Portugal, Colombia and Peru.

 

Having noted the registration of the domain name <advicegroup.com> by a third party, the company turns to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for its transfer. The domain name was reserved in 2014 by Michele Dionia of Macrosten LTD, located in Cyprus. The domain name resolves to a page of commercial links and suggests that the name may be for sale (Internet users can make an offer).

 

The Respondent did not respond to the complaint.

 

The expert acknowledges the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the applicant’s Italian semi-figurative trademark, “A Advice Progressive Marketing Thinking”.

 

However, he decides not to rule on the issue of legitimate interest, referring to his observations on the issue of bad faith. Nevertheless, he makes several observations on the legitimate interest, in favor of the Respondent: the terms that make up the domain name are generic and the Respondent did not make active use of the name, he simply let the registrar promote its services and included a message advising Internet users to contact the registrant for the purchase of the name.

The expert also obviously did some research on his part, which he is not bound to do, since he notes that there are many companies called Advice Group throughout the world.

 

 

Concerning bad faith, the expert insists on the fact that at the time of the registration of the name, the applicant had not yet registered a trademark. The filing took place nine months after the reservation of the name in question and the obtaining of rights, two years later! Nothing suggests that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering this domain name consisting of dictionary terms. Moreover, the fact that Internet users could propose the purchase of the name does not mean that the aim of Macrosten LTD was to resell it at a high price to Advice Group.

 

Thus, not only is the complaint rejected, but the expert also decides to qualify the complaint as a case of “reverse domain name hijacking”, i.e. it is considered that the complaint was filed with the sole purpose of depriving the domain name holder of the domain name. Here, the Complainant accused the Respondent of cybersquatting even though no evidence to that effect was provided and the name, consisting of generic terms, predates the Complainant’s trademark registration.

 

It should be remembered that proving the bad faith of a registrant when the domain  name consists of generic terms is difficult. It is essential to show that the registrant had the applicant’s trademark in mind. In the present case, it can be assumed that even if the Complainant’s trademark had been older, this would not have been sufficient to ensure the success of the complaint. The setting up of a site similar to that of the Complainant or for the same activities, or contact made by the registrant are elements that make possible to constitute a relevant case . Here, the Complainant had no evidence to justify his position.

 

Dreyfus firm, an expert in trademark law, can help you by offering you unique online trademark management services.

Read More

UDRP procedure: impossibility for a trademark owner to request the transfer of a domain name after its sale

The Swiss company Blockwords AG, formerly known as Swiss Future Project AG, operates an encryption exchange under the sign SCX, which was registered as a Swiss trademark on December 19, 2017.

 

The company has filed a UDRP complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for the transfer of the domain name <scx.ch>, alleging, among other things, that it infringes its trademark rights.

This domain name was registered on April 23, 2001 and acquired by the Swiss company in March 2018.  In March 2019, the name was transferred to the company SwissClass Trade AG, which subsequently sold it to the Respondent in the same month for more than EUR 60,000.

The Swiss company claims that a fraud was committed when the domain name <scx.ch> was transferred to SwissClass Trade AG due to the absence of two signatures from Blockworks AG which would have made the transfer legal.

 

In addition, it considers that the transfer of the domain name is the result of a mismanagement on the part of a former member of the board of directors.  Ultimately, the complainant fears misuse of the domain name by the Respondent although the latter has not changed the services offered on the website in question, which remain those of the Complainant.

 

The Respondent explains that it is incomprehensible that the Complainant would want to recover the domain name. Indeed, the Complainant sold the domain name to SwissClass Trade AG, which was free to resell it to the Respondent at a later date. Therefore, the Respondent believes that it was not at fault and that the issue is between the Complainant’s management and SwissClass Trade AG and not between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant’s position is not supported by the expert who believes that there was no fraud in the sale and transfer of the domain name to SwissClass Trade AG since the sale was signed by two legal representatives of the Complainant’s company. Therefore, the applicant cannot both sell its domain name and subsequently request its transfer. Furthermore, the expert did not accept the argument of mismanagement by one of the former members of the company’s board of directors, due to insufficient evidence.

The expert acknowledges, however, that the situation raises some questions: why did the Respondent purchase this domain name for more than 60,000 euros and what was its intention, even though it could immediately see that the name referred to a third party’s site?

The expert concludes that the complaint should be rejected. Due to the complex facts of the case, he is of the opinion that a judicial procedure would be more appropriate to gather the various pieces of evidence and to rule on them.

 

This scenario once again illustrates two problems. The first concerns the internal management of domain names: optimal security must always be ensured so that there is no risk of losing control of the names. The second issue related to the fact that UDRP is not an appropriate forum for all disputes. In the present case, it seemed clearly impossible to resolve the dispute between the parties without ruling both on the relationship between Blockwords AG and SwissClasse Trade AG and between Swiss Classe Trade AG and the Respondent.

Read More