Publications (Law Journals)

Emmanuel Gillet, “À la recherche d’une propriété littéraire et artistique dans la Chine ancienne”, Revue Francophone de la Propriété Intellectuelle, Décembre 2016, n° 3, pp. 49-62 [in French].

Deux mille ans d’une histoire chinoise du livre, marqués par une progression constante de son marché, n’ont-ils jamais façonné une perception ou mieux, une conscience, susceptibles de faire émerger l’idée de propriété littéraire et artistique ? Le présent article s’inscrit dans un débat qui vise, d’une part, à analyser la perception que pouvaient avoir les artistes, les auteurs et les éditeurs de la Chine ancienne vis-à-vis de la reproduction ou de l’imitation de leurs œuvres et, d’autre part, à s’interroger sur la possibilité de faire entendre leurs voix auprès des autorités. L’auteur conclut qu’une propriété littéraire paraît avoir été reconnue, à tout le moins, à un niveau local et sous une forme clairsemée et embryonnaire.

书籍在中国拥有两千年的历史,其间中国书籍市场持续进步。难道中国人在历史上从未形成某种导致文学艺术版权出现的看法乃至意识吗?本文旨在讨论两方面的问题。一是分析中国古代的艺术家、作家、出版商对于文学艺术作品复制、仿制行为的看法;另一方面,探讨上述各界人士是否就抵制盗版行为要求官方采取行动。本研究发现,文学版权在古代中国得到了初步的、零星的承认,至少体现在地方政府层面上


Emmanuel Gillet, “Procédures extrajudiciaires de règlement des litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine : quelles perspectives pour l’arbitrage ?”, Versailles International Business Law Review (VIBLR), 2013, No. 4, pp. 145-168 [in French].

The Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) was adopted in 1999 to address the shortcomings of the existing system at that time. Fifteen years later, times are marked by an unprecedented increase of domain names resources. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is in the process of liberalizing the creation of new top level domains and new technologies now allow the registration of internationalized domain names (IDNs). Resources will soon be almost endless and extremely varied. However, this new environment also creates unprecedented opportunities for cybersquatters. We need to question the effectiveness of the UDRP model now. This paper proposes that international arbitration would be a better mechanism to resolve domain names disputes.


Emmanuel Gillet, “Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes in China”, The International Litigation Quaterly, American Bar Association, Summer 2012 [in English]

Creation is a great engine of the economy. However, the rise of intellectual property in whatever society is necessarily followed by an increase of disputes. China has become a major player in this economy of intellectual property and it no longer hides its ambition to become a great nation in this field. In this context, it is important to know how to resolve disputes over intellectual property rights in the PRC. Arbitration could be an effective way. The first question to be asked is the issue of arbitrability: to what extent the Chinese legislation admits the arbitrability of intellectual property disputes? This article seeks to provide some answers to this delicate and complex issue, by focusing on the main intellectual property rights (copyright, trademark rights, and patent rights) and by analyzing the situation concerning the contractual matters, the issues of infringement and those relating to the validity of intellectual property rights. The article concludes that the legislative drafting does not provide the parties with clear rules; it is important to give them access to justice through alternative routes to state courts. In short, China intends to give wings to the arbitration of intellectual property disputes but the law lacks clarity and creates walls that hinder the development of arbitration for industrial property disputes.


Jean-Michel Bruguière et Emmanuel Gillet, « Litiges de propriété intellectuelle. L’apport de la loi de simplification et d’amélioration de la qualité du droit du 17 mai 2011 », La Semaine Juridique, Entreprise et Affaires (JCP E), N° 37, 15 Septembre 2011, Étude 1663, pp. 41-48 [in French]

This article discusses the impacts of the French law for simplification and improvement of law enacted on 17 May 2011 (the Law) on the resolution of intellectual property disputes. The authors argue that the Law has positive effects in simplifying and harmonizing intellectual property disputes: first, the Law gives an exclusive jurisdiction for intellectual property disputes to the tribunals of the first instance; second, the Law expressly widens the scope of arbitrability of intellectual property disputes. The lawmaker has clearly attempted to harmonize the regime of arbitrability for intellectual property disputes, regardless of the subject matter (i.e., disputes concerning copyrights, patents, trademarks, geographical indications or plant varieties). As a result, civil actions and claims relating to intellectual property rights, including those addressing a related issue of unfair competition, may now be settled by arbitration as provided in articles 2059 and 2060 of the Civil Code. The authors also point out the limits of the Law. For instance, whether disputes concerning the validity of a patent are arbitrable remains unaddressed by the law, which requires further clarification.


Emmanuel Gillet, « Vigueur et éclat de la clause compromissoire en matière interne », Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires (RLDA), 2010, Vol. 55, n° 3177, pp. 65-70 [in French].

This paper argues for the strength of the arbitration clause under French law, leaving little room for a reluctant party to attack its validity before the judges, through the lens of a decision by the Douai Court of Appeal on 17 September 2009. This remarkable decision reaffirmed clearly all the solutions adopted by the Cour de cassation on the following issues: i) there is an implicit consent to the arbitration clause ii) the prevalence of an arbitration clause over a clause conferring jurisdiction on civil courts; iii) the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to rule on claims prior to the opening of bankruptcy, and iv) the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to rule on tort disputes.


Emmanuel Gillet, « Domaining et sites parking : enjeux et responsabilités », Revue Lamy Droit de l’Immatériel (RLDI), 2010, Vol. 62, n° 2056, pp. 68-72 [in French].

“Domaining” is a domain name speculation, which results in the registration or the acquisition of domain names. Those domain names can reproduce or imitate a trademark or a celebrity name; they also can reproduce a generic word or even have no particular meaning. But they all must generate some value since the purpose of the “domainer” is to earn money, either by selling them or by connecting them to some “parking” web pages that are able to generate commercial links. This paper discusses the business model of the web companies that offer such services, and analyzes the risks and liabilities of the various actors in the business of domaining and parking websites.


Emmanuel Gillet, « L’encadrement du nommage internet à l’épreuve des droits et libertés fondamentaux. À propos de la décision n° 2010-45 QPC du 6 octobre 2010 », Revue Lamy Droit de l’Immatériel (RLDI), 2010, Vol. 65, n° 2130, pp. 18-24 [in French].

This paper examines why the French Constitutional Court has declared that the domain names legal framework did not comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Upon a close examination of the domain names legal framework, the author agrees with the conclusion of the Court and argues that the strong and abusive protection of intellectual property rights may prevent third parties to exercise some fundamental rights such as freedom of enterprise and freedom of speech.


Emmanuel Gillet, « La sentence arbitrale n’est pas exécutoire de plein droit malgré la référence à un règlement d’arbitrage qui prévoit l’exécution de la sentence sans réserve, note sous Cass. civ. 1re, 4 juillet 2007, Groupe Antoine Tabet », Petites Affiches, 25 Septembre 2007, No. 192, pp. 27-29 [in French].

This paper discusses the solutions adopted by the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) in two decisions concerning the same case. The author agrees with the Supreme Court’s analysis, and highlights the rationale adopted by the Cour de cassation from the following aspects: i) the lack of enforceability per se of an arbitration award rendered under the auspices of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, despite some contractual provisions in its rules; ii) if it is true that the criminal proceedings take precedence over civil proceedings, the party who invokes this principle shall explain what would be the consequences of the criminal proceedings over the civil proceedings; and iii) the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 “on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters” does not apply to judicial decisions concerning the field of arbitration.