Law No. 120 of 19 June 2026, containing “Provisions on the Allocation of Proceeds from the Sale of Products”, entered into force on 21 July 2026. The law introduces specific transparency obligations for commercial initiatives in which the sale of a product is linked to the allocation of part of the proceeds to charitable organisations or initiatives.

Cars, household appliances, medical devices, industrial plants and agricultural machinery continuously generate data during their use. Until recently, however, this information often remained under the exclusive control of the manufacturer or the provider of the related service.

The Data Act, namely Regulation (EU) 2023/2854, introduces new rules aimed at making such data more accessible and usable. The Regulation has applied since 12 September 2025 and affects, among others, manufacturers of connected devices, providers of applications and digital services, and businesses using smart machinery.

By decision of 27 May 2026, issued in joined cases R 1719/2019-G and R 1922/2019-G, the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO confirmed the partial refusal of registration of the signs ANIMAL FARM and 1984, corresponding to the titles of George Orwell's famous novels, in respect of a series of goods and services falling, among others, within Classes 9, 16, and 41 (as well as, for the ANIMAL FARM mark alone, Class 28).

The Court of Milan clarifies that, where the defendant’s appeal against an IP preliminary injunction is still pending, the deadline to bring proceedings on the merits starts running only after the appeal proceedings have been concluded.

With the judgment of 22 April 2026 (caseT-228/25), the General Court of the European Union confirmed the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2025, and, therefore, the invalidity of design no. 000257001-0001 registered by Crocs.

What happens when a smaller innovative company has a valuable patent, a credible infringement case, but cannot easily immobilise large amounts of cash or obtain a bank guarantee?  Litigation funding and ATE insurance can help companies overcome the impasse.

Legislative Decree No. 209 of 31 December 2025, implementing Directive (EU) 2023/2673, introduces significant changes to the rules governing distance contracts and the right of withdrawal in online transactions. In particular, for contracts concluded from 19 June 2026 onwards, traders will be required to incorporate a function dedicated to the exercise of the right of withdrawal into their digital interfaces.

The CJEU, following a referral from the Italian Court of Cassation, has clarified that Article 132(4) of the Italian IP Code is incompatible with EU law: a national provision cannot allow a preliminary injunction to remain in force if the right holder fails to bring proceedings on the merits within the prescribed time limit and the defendant applies for its revocation.

With Legislative Decree No. 30 of 20 February 2026, in force as of 24 March 2026, Italy has implemented Directive (EU) 2024/825, also known as the “Green Claims Directive” (as we mentioned here), within the broader framework of the European Green Deal, aimed at strengthening consumer protection against unfair commercial practices related to environmental and sustainability issues.

On 19 February 2026, I had the honour and privilege of being invited by the European Commission to discuss the UP and the UPC with some of Europe’s leading patent practitioners. This article sets out the reflections I shared on that occasion: where the system is already delivering, where the friction points are emerging in practice, and which technical adjustments would most effectively improve usability, predictability and legitimacy.

The Milano - Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games have come to an end, but the ambush marketing chapter is far from closed. In the weeks leading up to - and during - the event, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato – AGCM) turned its spotlight on promotional initiatives allegedly capable of creating an undue association with the Olympic event by operators that were not official sponsors. We previously discussed the phenomenon here and here.

Today (17 February 2026), the European Commission launched formal proceedings against the well-known Chinese company Shein under the Digital Services Act (DSA), for its addictive design, the lack of transparency of recommender systems, as well as the sale of illegal products, including child sexual abuse material. 

By four judgments delivered on the same day – Cases T-1170/23, T-1171/23, T-1172/23 and T-1173/23 – the General Court of the European Union definitively confirmed the invalidity of four EU three-dimensional trademarks, all owned by Spin Master Toys UK Ltd and all relating to variants of the well-known cube-shaped puzzle.

‍These decisions are substantially overlapping, both in their reasoning and in the solutions adopted, and may be read as a single coherent intervention on the issue of functional shape within EU trademark law, a topic we have previously addressed, for example, here.

‍ ‍

Commercial collaborations frequently give rise to new technical or creative outcomes. When this happens, disputes often emerge as to who owns the intellectual property rights in those results.
In litigation, the answer almost invariably depends on the content of the parties’ agreements — and, just as importantly, on what those agreements fail to regulate.

A recent judgment of the Milan IP Court of Appeal (Judgment no. 68/2026 of 14 January 2026), provides a clear illustration of this principle.

The Italian Competition Authority has recently launched two proceedings against the video game publisher Activision Blizzard. The investigation focuses on information transparency, marketing methods and in-game purchases within its free-to-play titles Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile.

On 9 October 2025, the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) imposed an administrative fine of EUR 70,000 on a healthcare facility in the Milan area in connection with an incident involving the erroneous destruction of biological material.

In its judgment of 12 November 2025 (Case T-252/24), the General Court of the European Union addressed the issue of descriptive trademarks, focusing on the delicate balance between evocative verbal elements and figurative components in composite signs.

The case concerned the European Union trademark WASHTOWER, registered in Class 20 of the Nice Classification for “furniture, namely furniture for washing machines or tumble dryers”, which was the subject of an application for a declaration of invalidity filed by LG Electronics Inc. (LG) on the basis of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR).

With the recent (non-final) judgment of 3 January 2026 (no. 73/2026), the Venice Court once again addressed the issue of the protectability of know-how and the misappropriation of information by former employees.

The Court reiterates principles previously articulated in Cofemel and Brompton and seeks to clarify (i) how the originality of a design object is to be assessed for copyright purposes and (ii) how infringement is to be established.

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.