French trademark applications: the usefulness of a prior rights search on domain names

The ordinance of 13 November 2019, transposing the European trademark reform package, has made explicit what French case law had built over the years: under Article L.711-3 of the Intellectual Property Code, a domain name whose reach is more than merely local is now a prior right opposable to a later trademark. The courts had prepared the ground, protecting domain names shown to be genuinely used — audience of the site, active clientele, press mentions. The practical consequence cuts both ways. Before filing a French trademark, a clearance search must now cover domain names, not just registers of marks and company names, on pain of opposition or invalidity; and holders of exploited domain names gain a weapon against later filings. The article presents IP Twins' DETECTIVE platform, which pairs identical and similar domain searches with legal analysis — prudence at filing costs less than litigation after.

Brand and trademark infringement on Twitter

By turning verification into a product — the blue badge for eight dollars a month with Twitter Blue, without real authentication — Twitter dismantled overnight the very signal that used to distinguish authentic accounts from impostors. The consequences were immediate: a fake George W. Bush account collected thousands of retweets; 'verified' accounts impersonated Apple, Nestlé, Tesla and SpaceX, publishing fake announcements with massive engagement; others directed users to phishing sites promising free verification through wallet authentication. Where the badge once reassured, it now lends credibility to fraud at a trivial cost. The article draws the operational consequences for brand owners: strengthen social listening, monitor handles and lookalikes as closely as domain names, report impersonations promptly through the platforms' procedures, and treat social networks as a full component of anti-phishing and brand-protection programmes.

16 November 2022
Initially published on iptwins.com

The geographical name of national importance: common good or private monopoly?

The France.com case made an impression — it may also mark a turning point in the legal regime of geographical names of national importance. International law offers them little: Article 6ter of the Paris Convention protects flags and emblems, not country names, and TRIPS is silent. Since the 2000s and the rise of nation branding, states have claimed sovereign control over their names: ICANN’s GAC recommended in 2007 avoiding the registration of country names, and Specification 5 subjects them, in the new gTLDs, to government consent — though of 94 states concerned, only ten have expressly waived their reservation. The Cour de cassation’s ruling of 6 April 2022, making the name “France” an element of the State’s identity, strengthens the sovereign reading. Blockchain extensions such as .ETH, beyond any of these safeguards, reopen the whole question — common good or private monopoly?

3 October 2022
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

18 March 2020

Jurisdiction

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions