Les vanity URLs : Nouveaux enjeux et nouveaux risques pour les marques sur les réseaux sociaux (The Vanity URLs: New Stakes and New Risks for Brands on Social Networks)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veritables phenomenes sociaux, economiques et juridiques, touchant le monde entier, les reseaux sociaux – comme Facebook ou Twitter – ont fait apparaitre de nouveaux risques pour les droits de propriete intellectuelle, y compris en matiere de droit des marques. Cette problematique a ete amplifiee par l’apparition des vanity URLs, permettant d’obtenir des adresses du type sujettes a usurpation. Quelles sont donc les solutions qui s’offrent aux titulaires de droit de marque face aux nouvelles pratiques qui ont lieu sur ces reseaux sociaux ? Si le droit classique applicable en matiere de contrefacon ou de cybersquatting semble presenter des failles pour apprehender ces pratiques, des solutions sont neanmoins proposees par les operateurs de reseaux sociaux. Dans la meme perspective, de nouvelles habitudes doivent etre prises par les entreprises afin d’anticiper ce type de situation et pouvoir les faire cesser le cas echeant. Worldwide actual social, economic and legal phenomena, social networks – as Facebook or Twitter – have raised new risks for intellectual property rights, including in the field of trademark rights. This issue is amplified by the emergence of vanity URLs, giving users URLs subject to impersonation of trade marks. Which are then the solutions for brand owners facing these new uses on social networks? If traditional law protecting trademarks from infringement or cybersquatting appears to have loopholes in that subject matter, solutions are however proposed by social network operators. Therefore, some social habits have to be implement by companies, in view of anticipating such situations, and be able to make them cease, if necessary. Note: Downloadable document is in French.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".