y decision no. 4136/2015 of 31 March (in Mylan v. Boehringer), the Court of Milan declared the invalidity of a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for a combination of two active ingredients, one the object of a basic patent (and already covered by an SPC) and the other one in the public domain but claimed in the patent in combination with the ingredient object of the invention.

Following a reference for a preliminary ruling proposed by the French Court of Cassation, the European Court of Justice recently ruled on the interpretation of Directive 2001/84/EC about the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (case C-41/14, Judgment of February 26, 2014).

By decision of 5 March in joint cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) provided a preliminary ruling on the liability for damages caused by defective medical devices.

In its decision no. 2271/2015 published on 19 February 2015, the IP Court of Milan once again tackled an issue that has pitted car manufacturers and component makers against each other for years: the scope of the so-called “repair clause”.

The Court of Milan (Business Chamber “A”) recently issued an interim decision on the possibility of protecting the shape of a product as a trademark and against slavish imitation (order of 12 March 2015, docket no. 7639/2015).

On 12 March, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) ruled on the possibility of issuing a valid supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for a combination of two active ingredients, one the object of the basic patent (and already covered by an SPC) and the other one in the public domain but claimed in the patent in combination with the ingredient object of the invention.

A recent judgment of the IP Court of Venice addresses a perhaps unprecedented issue in Italian case law: that of the protection under copyright laws of a work created by a lawyer for their client in the performance of legal services.

By judgment no. 3806/15, published a few days ago, the Italian Supreme Court ruled on the infringement of an earlier registered trademark by a company name and corresponding unregistered trademark containing a surname identical to the earlier mark. Specifically, the earlier registered trademark was the CTM “Alessi”, held by the plaintiff Alessi S.p.A., operating in the advertising industry, whilst the defendant, operating in the same field, was named “Exclusive di Giacinto Alessi s.r.l.” and used the corresponding unregistered trademark.

A recent ruling of a panel of Milan IP judges offers a useful perspective on the views of Italian courts on “forum shopping” in the context of IPR infringement proceedings.

The Italian Court of Cassation, in the grounds of judgment n. 3340/15 (published on 19th February), stated important principles about the plagiarism of literary texts, specifically regarding musical works.

The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) recently clarified the function of the “Specific Mechanism” regulating the parallel import of patented drugs within the EU, which provides an exemption to the principles of free movement of goods and the exhaustion of IP rights.

With ruling no. 2671, published on 11 February 2015, the Italian Court of Cassation rejected the appeal brought by the sister of the famous Italian songwriter Rino Gaetano against a decision of the Rome Court of Appeal granting the frontman of a cover band the right to use the trademark “Ciao Rino”.

A dispute regarding trademarks with reputation recently gave the Business Court of Milan “A” the opportunity to reiterate some of the principles relating to their protection. By judgment of 13 February 2015, the Court in fact ruled on the use of the trademarks “D&G” and “Sicily” held by Dolce & Gabbana, who challenged the use of the same signs for food (chewing gum) by the company and relevant director sued, demanding protection among others pursuant to art. 20 (1) (c) of the Italian IP Code (“IPC”).

A lengthy Italian judicial saga on geographical indications, which also spawned a European Court of Justice preliminary ruling, has finally come to an end with Court of Cassation ruling no. 28228/2015, published on the 12th of February 2015.

The Milan Business Court “A” recently ruled in a case of image rights infringement initiated by the famous soccer player Gianni Rivera against RCS Mediagroup S.p.A.

The section of the Milan Court dealing with IP matters recently issued an interesting ruling in a trademark infringement and parallel import case.

On 15 January, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) ruled in Case C- 631/13 concerning supplementary protection certificates (“SPCs”). As is known, this is a very relevant matter in the life sciences industry, which we discussed among other things here on this blog.

On 30 January 2015 the Italian Antitrust Authority, in accepting commitments made by the parties, closed infringement proceedings relating to allegedly unfair commercial practices carried out by Gameloft, iTunes, Google and Amazon.

A court order dismissing an interim motion on account of prolonged negotiations between the parties to the proceedings is invalid, according to a recent appeal ruling issued by the Enterprise Matters Section of the Court of Milan.

Last December, the Invalidity Division of the Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) declared the invalidity – with a decision still subject to appeal – of Community design (CD) no. 2222463-001, relating to footwear products, filed in April 2013 by a Portuguese holder (see first image below), upon application by US Crocs Inc., the manufacturer of the famous multi-coloured, holed shoes.