The search and seizure of evidence pursuant to the Italian IP Code, within the framework of know-how litigations, requires prima facie evidence of ownership and infringement of trade secrets in the strict sense. This was confirmed in a recent case brought by an Italian company before the Milan IP Court through a summary judgment application.

The Court clarified that the the exception provided for in Art. 7(2) of Reg. (EC) no. 6/2002 applies not only to identical designs, but also to those that produce the same overall impression on the informed user.

In an increasingly competitive and digitalised economic environment, know-how represents one of the most valuable assets for businesses. It is not just about data or technical information, but rather the combination of knowledge, skills, processes, and practices that form the beating heart of innovation and competitive advantage. However, the protection of this intangible asset is often underestimated or left to individual initiative.

On 17 December 2024, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO issued a decision in the PDO protection landscape, upholding opposition no. B 3207890 against the registration of trademark application no. 018918364 “CHAMPRICE”

A recent ruling (No. 1481/2025 of 26 March 2025) by the Turin IP Court on employee poaching and misappropriation of trade secrets offers a valuable overview of the “state of the art” of Italian case law on these matters.

The court acknowledged the validity but denied infringement of the enforced registered designs. In respect of copyright protection, it stated that artistic value is still required by the Italian law notwithstanding the ECJ Cofemel decision.

According to the decision, the court of an EU country in which the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction to rule on patent infringement committed in another EU or non-EU country even if a validity defence is raised. In the case of a non-EU country, the court may also have jurisdiction to rule on the validity defence with inter partes effect.

Italian Law No. 143 of October 7, 2024, converting the so-called Omnibus Decree (Italian Law Decree No. 113 of August 10, 2024, concerning urgent fiscal measures, extensions of legislative deadlines and economic interventions), has introduced a number of new obligations and responsibilities, for Internet Service Providers, including some carrying criminal charges.

Our firm, Martini Manna & Partners, successfully assisted a world-leading company in the boiler industry in an interim dispute concerning the search order on know-how before the IP Court of Brescia.

On October 8th, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published the Guidelines 1/2024 on the processing of personal data based on Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. These guidelines analyse the criteria outlined in Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR that data controllers must meet in order to lawfully process personal data necessary for the “legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party.” According to the Board, legitimate interest criterion should not be treated as a "last resort" for unusual or unexpected situations where other legal bases are deemed inapplicable, nor should it be automatically chosen or its use unduly extended on the assumption that it is less restrictive than other legal bases.

The Court Appeal clarified that withdrawal of the opt-out is not allowed when national proceedings were commenced during the transitional period. Instead, proceedings commenced before the transitional period cannot affect the withdrawal.

The Court of Milan stated that so-called ‘simple’ (non-creative) photographs available and accessible on the internet, except in cases of bad faith, can be used freely and without authorisation by the people who found them, if they lack the indications prescribed by Article 90 of the Italian Copyright Law (no. 633/1941, ICL).

The Italian Advertising Standards Authority (IAP) has recently released an updated version of the Digital Chart Regulation, which incorporates the latest developments in the field and insights from the technical roundtable initiated by AGCOM, as basis for the drafting of a code of conduct, which is expected to be published in early 2025.

The Court clarified that, pursuant to Directive 2001/29/EC, Member States cannot apply the criterion of material reciprocity (Art. 2(7) of the Berne Convention) to works of applied art from third countries.

In a recent decision (see Data Protection Authority Newsletter, October 22, 2024), the Data Protection Authority fined a company €80,000 for creating backups of an employee’s email account during the employment relationship, affirming that an employer cannot access an employee’s email or use software to retain copies of messages.

The Court declared the infringement, enjoined the defendant from any further marketing of infringing machinery, setting a penalty of €12,000 for any further infringement, and ordered an interim award of damages in the amount of €15,000.

The decision elaborates on the need to dismiss or stay the case due to the pending of parallel proceedings between affiliated companies and provides a summary of the criteria to be followed in interpreting claims and assessing novelty and inventive steps.

The Court highlighted that intervention in interim proceedings is exceptional and can only be granted in presence of a legal interest of the intervener. Menarini instead had a mere de facto interest in boostering parallel proceedings in which it was a party. Its application was therefore dismissed.

On 26 July 2024, the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO rejected the appeal filed by Consorzio Vino Chianti against the refusal to register EU collective trademark no. 018441418 for lack of distinctiveness pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR and Article 76(1) EUTMR.

The Court held that the declared intention to launch a biosimilar drug and the obtaining of the related Marketing Authorization did not constitute an "imminent infringement" of the patent on the originator drug. Therefore, the requested interim injunction was not granted.