The Italian Supreme Court recently issued a decision addressing whether the Vespa shape, already protected under copyright, was precluded from registration as a 3D mark. According to the Court, a shape’s artistic value usually confers substantial value which prohibits trade mark registration under Italian law.
Read MoreThe Italian Supreme Court decision on the KIKO case (Cass. 780/2020) is the most recent judgement made in the wake of the Cofemel decision (case C-683/17) and follows the UK IPEC decision in Response Clothing (click here for our previous blog post).
In this latest development, KIKO S.p.a, a well-known make-up store was able to secure copyright protection for its signature store layout, made of its open space entrance with digital screens, the white/black/pink/purple color combination, the disco lighting effects, the size, proportions, materials and position of furniture.
Read MoreIn 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.
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.
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.
Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.