Shanghai Pudong Court White Paper on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of Foreign-Invested Enterprises

In April 2021, the intellectual property division of the Shanghai Pudong court published a White Paper on building a business environment protective of foreign-invested enterprises’ IP rights, in line with the official doctrine of “equal protection of Chinese and foreign parties”. Four principles structure the document: national treatment; severe punishment of IP crimes; balancing of interests in defining the scope of protection; and prohibition of abuse of rights. Since the creation of the Shanghai free-trade zone in 2013, the court has accepted 589 cases involving foreign IP holders — 397 civil, 191 criminal — with American (24%), German (7.5%), South Korean (5%) and British (3.5%) parties; serious trademark cases have drawn fines of up to RMB 10 million and six-year prison terms. Illustrations include counterfeit Bordeaux wines, L’Oréal and Dyson infringement cases, and a Levi’s dispute resolved through WIPO mediation.

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

Online Trademark Infringement: When the Corporate Veil Does Not Shield the Director

In a judgment of 7 October 2026 (No. 25-14.170), designated for publication in the Bulletin and the Rapport, the Commercial Chamber of the French Court of Cassation clarified when the manager of an SARL may be held personally liable for trademark infringement committed through the company's e-commerce website. First, the civil court must determine whether the acts personally attributed to the manager constitute the intentional criminal offence of trademark infringement under Article L. 716-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code. If they do, the offence is misconduct separable from corporate duties under Article L. 223-22 of the Commercial Code, and no prior criminal conviction is needed. Second, the manager's refusal to ensure compliance with a court order requiring the company to produce accounting and commercial documents is itself separable misconduct, even though the order was addressed to the company and not to him. Rights holders thus have two independent routes to the director's personal liability.

26 October 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Rush and Distribution: A Sector Map of the 2026 Reveal Day

On 7 October 2026, ICANN published the applications filed in the first new gTLD round since 2012: 1,614 primary applications for 986 distinct strings, submitted by 480 entities. That is fewer than in 2012 (1,930 applications for 1,409 strings), with evaluation fees now at USD 227,000, but the round is more contested: 55% of applications face a competitor, against 39% in 2012. Assigning each string to a sector reveals a demand driven by digital technology. Artificial intelligence is the most fiercely disputed sector, with .AGENT drawing thirteen applicants, and the leading AI companies have secured their own names. Brands have responded with restraint: 333 .BRAND applications, one in five, only nine of them French. Geographic names, so prominent in 2012, have almost disappeared, while niches such as health and the professions are emerging, including a community application for .AVOCAT. For trademark owners, the priority is to screen the list before the objection period opens on 17 November 2026.

9 October 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

8 June 2021

Jurisdiction

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions