The court invites the claimant to select those attacks it considers the strongest and to rank them in order of importance. Once the attacks so selected are found to be unfounded, the Court considers it justified not to examin the remaining attacks. This places substantial responsibility on the parties as regards the selection and prioritisation of their objections.

By order dated 3 March 2025, the Specialist Business Section of the Milan Court granted the application for interim injunctive relief under Article 131 of the Italian Industrial Property Code and Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by Chanel and its Italian distributor, prohibiting the sale of the maison’s perfumes inside the stores of the defendants, two well-known retail chains specializing in general consumer products for personal and household care.

In line with established case law, the Court recognised the armchair’s artistic value, thereby granting it protection under Article 2, No. 10 of the Italian Copyright Law (ICL). It also deemed the use of copies of the armchair in certain RAI television programmes to be unlawful.

By judgment of 10 September 2025 (Case T-425/24), the General Court of the European Union ruled on a conflict between the trademarks belonging to unrelated sectors: pasta and fashion.

As specialists are well aware, limitation by acquiescence is a legal doctrine where a trademark owner loses their right to challenge a later, conflicting, trademark if they knowingly tolerate its use for a continuous five-year period. To invoke this defense, the owner of the later mark must prove the earlier owner was aware of the use and did not take legal action. This limitation is ruled out only if the application for the later mark was made in bad faith.

The IP Court of Turin addressed this matter in its recent judgment no. 4050/2025. The dispute involved two companies both operating in the paint and related products sector: one, the plaintiff, was the owner of the Italian word mark DULOX, registered as early as 1938; the other, the defendant, owned and had been using the later European Union trademark DULUX, registered in the ‘90s.

With Law no. 132/2025 of 23 September 2025, Italy is the first EU Member State to complement Regulation (EU) no. 2024/1689 with a comprehensive national framework on artificial intelligence.

With its ruling no. 6240/2025, the IP Court of Milan held the chairman of the board, of a company engaged in the use of unlicensed software, jointly responsible with the company for copyright infringement. This decision validates an already established trend in Italian IP courts.

In an interesting ruling on sound marks the EU General Court annulled the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which had rejected the application for registration of EU sound mark no. 018849003 filed by the Berlin public transport company, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe.

With decision no. 57 of April 3, 2025, the Board of Appeals of the Italian Patent and Trademark Office (UIBM) ruled on, and rejected, an opposition to the registration of a trademark deemed weak and, therefore, of limited protection.

With its order of 27 June 2025, the Court of Genoa ruled on an unusual dispute concerning sports audiovisual rights and video game content, rejecting the motion for interim injunction filed by Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A against a gamer accused of violating its exclusive rights by illegally publishing online “highlights” created using the EA Sports FC25 video game to recreate the actions of football matches.

In a recent press release, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced that it had successfully concluded a moral suasion procedure with Acqua Minerale San Benedetto S.p.A., which agreed to remove potentially misleading green claims used to promote and market products in its Ecogreen line.

The Supreme Court returned to the issue of compensation for damages in relation to patent infringement and, in particular, the distinction between the sale and marketing of the infringing product for the purposes of  compensation for damages.

The Court upheld the objection based on Articles 102 and 103(2) of Regulation 1308/13, prohibiting, amongst others, the commercial use of the protected name “in so far as such use exploits the reputation” of the PDO; and any “false or misleading indication” as to the origin, nature or essential qualities of the product.

With order no. 12956 of 14 May 2025, the Italian Supreme Court ruled in a complex case concerning copyright and the digital exploitation of musical works, rejecting the appeal filed by Sony Music Entertainment Italy S.r.l. against Lucio Battisti's heirs and their companies Edizioni Musicali Acqua Azzurra S.r.l. and Aquilone S.r.l.

A 24 June 2025 PI order issued by the IP division of the Court of Venice confirms a well-established line of Italian case law regarding the ownership regime applicable to commissioned software (which we addressed already here).

The court highlighted that a rehearing is an extraordinary legal remedy that, under Article 81(1) UPCA, may exceptionally be granted only if a final decision is tainted by a criminal act or a fundamental procedural defect. it is not available for mere errors or disagreements over the interpretation of the law or the assessment of the parties’ arguments or evidence.

By judgment No. 1599/2025 of 5 May 2025, the Venice IP Court of Appeal affirmed that it is possible to obtain a declaratory judgment of infringement and the related injunctive and compensatory relief even with respect to a patent whose main claim has been declared invalid.

On February 18, 2025, Judgment No. 4131 issued by the First Civil Division of the Court of Cassation was published. The Court returned to the topic of co-owned patents, and particularly the applicability of the rules on co-ownership in such cases. The decision in question raised a legal issue of such significance as to justify a public hearing: in the case of patent co-ownership, may the invention be freely exploited by each co-owner, or, conversely, is the consent of the other always required?

According to the CdS, the combination of the elements – position of the billboard near the Football Village, slogan used, football shirt, flags of the nations participating in the event – constituted communicative “framing” capable of persuading the average customer to believe, erroneously, that Zalando was the official sponsor of UEFA Euro 2020.

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jaguar Land Rover, confirming the invalidity of four Italian 3d trademarks registered on the famous off-road vehicle “Defender” due to lack of distinctive character.