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”

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 EUIPO recently upheld Opposition B 3142350 against the EU word trademark application no. 018334069 “SPRIO SPRITZ”, based on the Italian word trademark “PRIO DONNAFUGATA”, filed against goods in Class 33.

The Italian Institute of Advertising Self-Regulation Jury has ruled on the lawfulness of a recent Vodafone commercial dedicated to the purchase of smartphones in installments, in relation to the role of minors in advertising.

In its recent order no. 16314/2023, the Italian Supreme Court ruled on the pre-disclosure proof requirements in patent law, stating that the choice between the various findings in support of the decision is ultimately the choice of the judge of the merits

As of 29 December 2022, eligible subjects will be able to file an application with the Italian Patent and Trademark Office for a declaration of invalidity or revocation of a registered trademark.

The European General Court, while reiterating that colour marks can only be registered exceptionally, emphasises that the key point must be the assessment of the distinctive character determined in relation to the goods/services claimed and the consumers concerned

Although iconic, for the EUIPO the shape of Dior's “Saddle Bag” does not deviate sufficiently from the industry standard to have original distinctiveness

The General Court of the European Union confirmed the revocation of Apple's iconic “Think Different”

With its first decision on the topic of ambush marketing, the Italian Competition Authority lays down guidelines for advertising campaigns

The ECJ ruled on whether the storage of content in the context of cloud computing services falls within the exception for “private copying” referred to in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC.