Brexit and GDPR

The United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020; Nominet, the .UK registry, published guidance on what this means for data protection. During the transition period, the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 continue to apply unchanged. From 31 December 2020, the United Kingdom becomes a third country: personal data received before that date must continue to enjoy protection essentially equivalent to European standards, and transfers from the Union will depend on an adequacy decision, which the European Commission will only grant after assessing the British regime. Pending that decision, businesses — registrars and registries included, WHOIS data being personal data — must rely on the GDPR's cross-border transfer mechanisms. The article advises companies handling UK-related domain name and customer data to map their data flows now rather than wait for the cliff edge.

The European Commission’s €550 Million Fine Against AliExpress: A Turning Point for Trade Mark Enforcement Under the Digital Services Act

On 20 July 2026 the European Commission fined AliExpress €550 million for breaching several obligations of the Digital Services Act — the first enforcement action of this magnitude under the Regulation. The size of the penalty is not what matters most. The Commission is not sanctioning the presence of counterfeit goods on the marketplace, but the inadequacy of the risk governance built around it: an assessment that underestimated the risks while overestimating the platform’s own controls, moderation and detection systems below the level of protection required, and human resources out of proportion to the risks identified. Articles 34 and 35 impose on very large online platforms an enhanced obligation of means, not a guarantee of result. For rights holders, this article argues, trade mark protection shifts from a reactive logic of notice and takedown to the prevention of systemic risks.

28 July 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Tracing and Disclosure: Belgium Enlists Registrars in the Fight Against Sports Piracy

Registrars are no longer asked only who holds a domain name, but how that holder pays. On 19 August 2026, Belgium’s Department for Combating Online Infringements of Copyright (BAPO) issued five decisions ordering Hosting Concepts, Hostinger, Key Systems and one registry to disclose, within ten working days, data on the holders of domain names used by illegal sports streaming sites. Implementing orders obtained by DAZN and The 12th Player before the French-speaking Business Court of Brussels, and relying on Article 10 of the Digital Services Act and Articles XVII.34/1 et seq. of the Code of Economic Law, the request goes far beyond WHOIS: identities, full IBANs, crypto wallets, IP addresses and twelve months of connection logs, under a strict duty of silence. Measured against the case law of the Court of Justice (Promusicae, Mircom, Coty Germany, La Quadrature du Net), this “follow the money” turn raises questions of territoriality, proportionality and data protection, and opens a path that online brand protection may one day borrow.

22 September 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Lacoste v Shein: When a Platform Can No Longer Hide Behind Hosting Status

A platform is not one legal object. In Lacoste v Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. and Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd. (Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 1, 8 July 2026, RG 25/12454), the Court of Appeal refused to let the operators of shein.com shelter behind the hosting exemption of Article 6 of the Digital Services Act: goods “sold by Shein”, Shein labels and packaging, and the Commission’s designation of the service as a very large online platform revealed a hybrid activity, and the characterisation attached not to the platform as a whole but to the role actually played in the disputed transactions. The judgment reaches beyond the twenty offending products. “Lacoste”, typed into the internal search engine, infringes the word marks; “crocodile”, a free word, grounds unfair competition and parasitism. Interim damages rise from €30,000 to €300,000 — the defendants’ own failure to disclose their turnover counting against them — and the measures run across the European Union.

28 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

25 February 2020

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions