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.

The court found for design infringement and calculated damages based on the profits lost due to the infringers’ commercialisation, thus applying one of the criteria established by art. 125 Italian IP Code for damage calculation.

The court found that the ZzzQuil packaging is distinctive and that competitor’s product illicitly imitate it, as incorporates all its identifying elements.

The EUIPO found that a trademark application for the sign ‘DUTCH GENQUILA’ should be rejected for all alcoholic beverages including wines as it evoked the PGI ‘TEQUILA’

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.

By the order under discussion, the CoA overturned this decision finding that, contrary to the judgement of the CFI, the validity of the patent at issue was not established with a sufficient degree of certainty for the injunction to be issued.

EU Court of Justice rules on use of trademarks on non-OEM spare parts

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.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the UPC stated that, in proceedings that do not involve technical issues, the Court of Appeal can decide without technically qualified judges.

The court elaborated on when two parties are to be considered the “same parties” under Article 33 UPCA, based on which, if an action for infringement between the same parties relating to the same patent has been brought before a local or a regional division, the revocation action may only be brought before the same local or regional division.

In agreement with the Cancellation Division, the BoA considered that the contested trademark was registered in breach of Art. 7(1)(e)(ii) of EU Regulation no. 207/2009 as it consists exclusively of a shape that is necessary in order to obtain a technical result.

The Italian Patent and Trademark Office upheld Lindt's opposition against the registration of the ETNA EXCELLENCE trademark for chocolate and similar products, in light of Lindt's prior rights to the EXCELLENCE trademark.

The Court granted copyright protection but concluded that the shape of the Vespa might not be entitled to 3D trademark protection as it would be a “shape that gives substantial value to the product “. The next day, the EU General Court annulled the EUIPO BoA decision which had declared the same trademark null and void due to a lack of distinctive character.

The defendant’s deadlines for the submission of its preliminary objection and statement of claim shall be calculated from the date when the annexes to the statement of claim were made available to the defendants, and not from the earlier date in which the statement of claim – without those annexes – was served on the defendants.

The applicant stated that he was interested to see how the claim division was framed, particularly since it was filed in parallel with cases in other divisions, and that he believes there is broader public interest in this information being made available for public scrutiny and discussion.

The LD ordered that the language of the proceedings (Dutch) be changed to English, i.e. the language of the patent, to avoid considerable translation time and costs for the defendant.