On 4 July 2016, with ruling no. 13570, the Italian Supreme Court commented on the possibility of extending the co-ownership of an Italian trademark to an identical foreign trademark.

By decision of 8 September 2016 in T-472/13, the European General Court (“GC”) dismissed Lundbeck’s appeal against the European Commission (“EC”)’s decision to fine it – and a number of generic companies – for delaying market entry of generic versions of Lundbeck’s anti-depressant citalopram product.

In a decision published on 12 July (no. 8628/2016), the IP Court of Milan granted copyright protection to the Moon Boots by Tecnica Group S.p.A., the famous après-ski boots in vogue for decades, ascertaining that they were infringed by the Anouk après-ski boots by Anniel depicted below to the right.

Here is a copy of the article published on World IP Review on the impact of Brexit on IP – and particularly the UPC – from an Italian perspective. Written by Elena Martini, also reporting comments by Judge Tavassi, president of the Milan IP Court.

By preliminary order of 10 May 2016, the IP court of Venice upheld the infringement of the well-known word trademark “Morellato”, owned by the petitioner Morellato S.p.A., an Italian historical jewellery and watch company, by another Italian company with the same business name, trademark and domain name – all reproducing its founders’ surname – but active, inter alia, in the field of perfumes and cosmetics manufacturing.

On 25 May, the Italian Supreme Court issued decision no. 10826/16 in a dispute about which much has been said in recent years, both because of the reputation of the parties involved, and the extensive litigation to which it gave rise: the dispute between the fashion designer Elio Fiorucci and the companies that bought the “Fiorucci” brands in 1990 (Edwin Co. Ltd. and Edwin International Gmbh), with which the designer collaborated until 2002. We talked about this also here on this blog.

On 31 May 2016, by request of the Regional Court of Cologne, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) defined the correct interpretation to be given to the concept of “communication to the public” of copyright works (case C-117/15).

On 7 June, the IP Court of Milan issued sentence no. 5647/16 on the copyright of some video advertisements for BMW cars. The dispute was initiated by the company producing the videos and the author of the same, claiming that the videos they made ​​for BMW were then cut, edited and distributed via the internet without their authorisation and without mentioning their names, and claimed damages. BMW on its part essentially asserted its right to use the videos in question.

After four years of troubled negotiations, on 4 May 2016 the new Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on personal data protection was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

By first instance decision no. 5844/16 of 10 May, the Milan IP Court granted protection to the figurative trademark representing the famous “Arbre Magique”, owned by Julius Samann Ltd (“JSL”). The latter was considered to be infringed by the “Forest Fresh” trademark held by the competitor Siscar Spólka z o.o. Spólka Komandytowa (“Siscar”), which was used for identical products.

By first instance decision no. 5732/16 of 3 May, the Milan IP Court granted protection to the “Gancini” trademark held by Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. against the competitor DC Brands International Ltd. Here are Ferragamo’s three registered trademarks enforced in the proceedings, the first two being national trademarks and the third being a European (three-dimensional) trademark.

By order of 26 April, the IP Court of Turin dismissed the motion for preliminary injunction and seizure filed by Geox S.p.A. for trademark infringement against Imac S.p.A., the manufacturer of the “Primigi” branded children’s shoes.

On 29 March, the Milan IP Court issued an interesting judgment (no. 3925/2016) concerning trademark licence agreements, which clarified certain principles relating to their execution and validity.

On 3 March 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its decision in C-138/15 P, Teva v. European Medicines Agency (EMA) dealing with orphan drugst (of which we already talked here on this blog).

A recent comprehensive ruling by the IP Court of Milan provides a good example of cumulative protection afforded to industrial designs in the Italian legal system (Ruling no. 1935/2016, Chairing Judge M. Tavassi).

The European General Court (“EGC”), in its ruling of 24 February 2016, rejected the action brought by The Coca-Cola Company (herein “Coca-Cola”) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”), confirming the rejection of the application for a three-dimensional Community trademark consisting of the shape of its new contour bottles.

On 17 February, the Milan IP Court (Judge Mrs Zana) issued an interesting order relating to unregistered design protection and parasitic unfair competition with reference to the copy of the designs of some fabrics.

In its recent decision no. 302 of 2016, the Bologna Court division dealing with IP matters addressed the much-debated subject of the burden of proof in negative declaratory proceedings, specifically in the context of patent litigations.

By an interim order of 22 December 2015, an IP Court Judge in Naples rejected the application of a catering company seeking a preliminary injunction against a competitor using “ham” as a distinctive sign.

In a ruling published on 26 January 2016, The Florence IP Court upheld a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit waged by the historical fashion house Chanel against a locally well-known perfumery, which happened to be an official retailer of the former.