In the matter of trademark infringements, conflicts between a licensee’s buyer or assignee and the trademark owner are usually more complex than the archetypal litigation between the trademark holder and any alleged infringer.

A legal dispute between two competing businesses in the construction sector involving some of the most compelling issues in patent enforcement came to a close with the Court of Cassation (Criminal Chambers) ruling no. 15646/2015.

The General Court of the European Union (EGC) recently rejected the action brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier against the decision in which the Board of Appeal of OHIM declared the invalidity of its figurative Community trademark (or more specifically, confirmed the previous judgment of the Cancellation Division of OHIM) representing the iconic brown and beige chequerboard pattern used in the nineteenth century as a covering for trunks and today for high quality leather goods.

On 21 April the Court of Milan declared the revocation for non-use of the trademark “Venolen” held by the company Società Prodotti Antibiotici s.p.a. (decision no. 4825/15).

By three decisions of 5 May 2015 in cases T-423/12, T-183/13 and T-184/13, the General Court of the European Union (“GC”), stated that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the figurative and word trademarks SKYPE and the prior word trademark SKY, which prevents the registration of the SKYPE sign as a Community trademark.

With its decision on 25 February 2015 in Case R 1856/2013-2 Yves Fostier v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., partially allowing an appeal, the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market) confirmed the validity of the word “PINOCCHIO” as a Community trademark (CTM).

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.