Emmanuel Gillet

European Union Law

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.

Read the article on IPTwins ↗︎

Read next

European Union Law

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.

Counterfeiting · European Digital Law · Marketplace Enforcement · Trademark Law

28 July 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

Third-Party Liability

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.

Counterfeiting · Court Litigation · European Digital Law · Marketplace Enforcement · Trademark Law

28 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

Domain Name Law

COSHIELD: The Scope of the UDRP in Trademark Disputes

Not every dispute involving a trade mark and a domain name amounts to cybersquatting. In Polyco Healthline Limited v. David Beatson (WIPO Case No. D2026-1893), the panelist denied the complaint brought against coshield.com, a domain used since 2020 to sell personal protective equipment in the very sector where the complainant has exploited its SHIELD trade mark since 1997, and despite a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in 2021. The decision turns on the moment of acquisition: created in 2014, the domain name appears to have changed hands in May 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the combination of “Co” and “Shield” could describe the business rather than target Polyco. The evidence being “finely balanced”, bad faith was not established. This article examines why trade mark infringement and cybersquatting are two paths that do not necessarily converge.

Cybersquatting · Domain Name Law · Trademark Law · UDRP

23 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

25 February 2020

Jurisdiction

European Union, United Kingdom

Topics

European Union Law · WHOIS & Registration Data

Industry

Related Decision(s)