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.

Can a Simple Geometric Figure Possess Distinctive Character?
This is the issue addressed in the judgment of 13 November 2024 (T-426/23) of the General Court of the European Union, which confirmed the invalidity of the trademark registered by Chiquita Brands LLC for the blue and yellow sticker attached to fresh fruit, including bananas. This judgment, the result of a long legal process, provides significant insights into the concept of distinctiveness in trademarks.

A recent interim order issued by the Court of Florence (order dated 7 May 2025) addressed the potential conflict between banking confidentiality and the rights of third parties.
In this case, an Italian company mistakenly transferred funds to an unknown party due to an incorrect IBAN, while intending to move the money between two of its own bank accounts. Notably, the company had indicated itself as the “payee” in the transfer order.

By interim order of 24 April 2025 – perhaps the first, and certainly among the earliest Italian precedents on the matter – the Genoa IP Court issued a particularly noteworthy decision concerning the application of the so-called breeder’s exemption to plant-related patents.

At the beginning of 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its much-anticipated judgment in Audi (Case C-334/22), which addressed the delicate issue of trademark use on spare car parts produced by independent third parties. The decision quickly drew widespread attention across the legal community, as it was seen to mark a new milestone in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the intersection of intellectual property rights and the automotive aftermarket. It was, arguably, the most influential trademark ruling since Ford (2015), and it triggered extensive commentary (IPKat here).

Most commentators, including me, viewed the judgment as a clear reinforcement of the legal position of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and many assumed it would pave the way for Audi's success in the underlying national litigation. Few could have predicted that the Polish court, which had submitted the preliminary reference, would eventually issue a ruling that ran directly counter to those expectations.

In the field of software—and more broadly in the realm of intellectual works—non-specialists often assume that the original copyright holder is the individual or company responsible for its creation. In reality, this is not always the case. In many situations, the creator and the holder of the economic rights are different parties from the outset.

This issue was recently addressed by the IP Court of Brescia (order of 14 April 2025), which was called to resolve a dispute between two former partner companies, both claiming ownership of  software developed by one of them, to manage the electronics of industrial machines manufactured by the other.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

The decision was issued in 12 months and revoked the DexCom patent, dismissing its infringement claim. The decision is now effective in the 17 EU Member States that have ratified the UPC Agreement; it may however be appealed.

The Court confirmed the judgment of the Milan Court of Appeal, which denied copyright protection to the lamp pictured on the left, in respect of the one on the right. It also mentions Cofemel and the need to disapply the artistic value requirement.