Tag: Italian Supreme Court

1
“Vespa” scooters win twice against counterfeiting – Piaggio wins two lawsuits in a month
2
Legal Works as Creative Works: The Original Decision of the Court of Venice
3
The Protection of ‘Weak’ Trademarks Having Acquired Secondary Meaning

“Vespa” scooters win twice against counterfeiting – Piaggio wins two lawsuits in a month

In just a few weeks, Piaggio – the Italian company manufacturing iconic Vespa scooters – obtained a double victory before Italian courts both under the intellectual property and the copyright perspectives.

Read More

Legal Works as Creative Works: The Original Decision of the Court of Venice

In March, the IP Court of Venice (Court) provided a unique ruling on copyright law.

The Court ruled on an issue concerning the application of Italian copyright laws to protect a legal work created by a lawyer works.

A lawyer (Plaintiff) sued an entity (Entity), which was organizing an exposition for the infringement of Plaintiff’s moral rights due to the non-authorized use of a document containing IP policy guidelines (Document) to be distributed among the exhibitors, which entirely reproduced a document drafted years ago by the Plaintiff for another entity.

Read More

The Protection of ‘Weak’ Trademarks Having Acquired Secondary Meaning

On February 2, 2015, (judgment no. 1861) the Italian Supreme Court ruled on a case involving two Italian companies active in the sector of furniture: Natuzzi S.p.A., owner of the Italian and European trademark ‘Divani & Divani’ (Trademark 1), and Divini & Divani S.r.l. (Divini & Divani), which started to use the trademark ‘Divini & Divani’ (Trademark 2).

Natuzzi claimed that the use of Trademark 2 was illegitimate, constituted an act of unfair competition as well as trademark infringement claiming the use generated confusion amongst customers. In particular, Natuzzi stated that, even if Trademark 1 was composed by two common words (literally in English ‘Sofas & Sofas’), it acquired specific distinctiveness. Consequently, Natuzzi sought to prevent Divini & Divani from using Trademark 2 as a company name and a trademark for its products. Divini & Divani counterclaimed that Natuzzi’s requests were groundless because there could not be any confusion between the trademarks and, in any case, Trademark 1 was weak and consequently, not worthy of protection.

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.