Intellectual Property

The Milan Court rules on a dispute concerning the protection of the "Love" bench

It is from the end of December that the Court of Milan (in complaint) recognized the tort of unfair competition for slavish imitation against the "Amore" bench produced by Slide S.r.l., created by Slide's founder, Giuseppe Colonna Romano, and commercialized by Slide for more than 10 years.

Slide is specialized in the creation and production of furniture elements, mainly for outdoor use, including special polyethylene objects, and in 2021 Slide had noticed the commercialization and promotion by a Venetian company, its competitor, of a bench highly similar to the "Amore" bench called "Welcome."

Slide then promptly sued the Court of Milan so that, in the face of the unlawful conduct of the Venetian company, it would inhibit the latter from producing and commercializing the imitative product.

The Court of Milan, in its complaint, upheld Slide's claims, recognizing first of all the market accreditation of the "Amore" bench product, as an iconic product that is widely known and appreciated by the public, as well as the unlawful takeover of the essential and individualizing features of the AMORE bench by a competing company.

In particular, the Court ruled that the "distinctive sign imitated is, here, given by the external form of the product and consists of a three-dimensional sign, of which the complainant has suitably demonstrated, according to the College, on the one hand, all the requirements necessary for the invoked protection, namely, distinctive capacity, renown and novelty, as well as, on the other hand, the confusability between the two products." In order to appreciate the existence of these requirements of distinctiveness, renown and novelty with respect to Panca Amore, the Court then confirmed that:

  • the Love Bench is "a bench composed by a word consisting of letters of the alphabet, and it is precisely the outward form that has the individualizing and diversifying efficacy of the complainant's product, compared to other benches on the market. Moreover, in all logical evidence, having regard to the function properly and commonly performed by a bench, it is, here, a matter of a merely arbitrary and whimsical form, and not of a functional form, indispensable or mandatory for the achievement of a certain technical result, nor even useful, even if not strictly necessary to a certain result (here, the seat);
  • Slide "has provided suitable documentary evidence that it has started commercializing "Amore" bench since 2015-unlike the "Welcome" bench, which was first presented on the market only at the end of October 2021-and also that, "thanks to the promotional investments put in place by the complainant, as well as to the extensive marketing, in Italy and abroad, of the Amore bench, it has become so accredited on the market as to be immediately recognizable by the public [. .] through press reviews, the number of pieces sold and the relative turnover achieved, exhibition uses, sponsored promotions, and displays in furniture salons."
  • in relation to the form, "there is no suitable evidence that, before Slide, or even at the same time, other companies in the sector have produced and offered for sale manufactured goods with the peculiar characteristics peculiar to the Amore bench."

In conclusion, in relation to the above-mentioned products, the Court found that both all the requirements for protection of the imitated form and the danger of confusion by slavish imitation were met, on the basis of the general impression derived from their overall appearance, with respect to which the differential elements consist of mere individual details, incapable of impressing themselves on the consumer's mind in such a way as to enable him to distinguish the origin from entrepreneur other than Slide.

This is an important measure that, in addition to recognize the value of the design conceived and produced by Giò Colonna Romano for Slide, will allow it to protect a unique product such as Panca Amore from any further copies and imitations.

IDEAS POWERED FOR BUSINESS – THE 2023 FUND FOR SMES

Laura Bussoli - Senior Associate

Eleonora Carletti - Associate

Also for 2023, the European Union is once again making available a fund to provide financial support to small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) based within the European Union that want to invest in the protection of their intellectual property assets, in particular, trademarks and designs/models.

The Ideas Powered for Business Fund, with an endowment of about 25 million euros, aims to prevent the economic crisis for small and medium-sized enterprises that would otherwise be forced to give up the protection of their industrial property assets.

The funds made available to companies will be provided, in the form of vouchers that will be issued, upon the application of the interested party, following the EUIPO's examination of the existence of the subjective and objective requirements provided by the Fund.

EU SMEs are classified as illustrated in the following table:

Vouchers can only be used for activities after they are issued and can only cover the following activities:

  • Voucher 1: IP pre-diagnosis services (so-called “IP Scan”). This is a tool available to SMEs, using the aid of IP experts to develop a business strategy with reference to the protection of their IP assets. The planned subsidy is for a maximum amount of 1,350 euros for each company.
  • Voucher 2: applications for registration of trademarks, designs and models up to a maximum amount of 1,000 euros for each enterprise. In more detail, it will be possible to obtain a refund of:

a. 75% refund on fees for EU trademark and/or design applications, fees for additional classes, and fees for examination, registration, publication and deferment of publication.

b. 75% refund on national or regional fees for trademark and/or design applications, fees for additional classes, and fees for examination, registration, publication, and deferment of publication.

c. 50% refund on basic fees for trademark and/or design applications, designation fees, and subsequent designation fees outside the EU. Designation fees from EU countries are excluded, as are handling fees charged by the office of origin.

Thus, vouchers can be used to obtain refund of fees in relation to trademarks and designs filed directly with EUIPO and/or member state intellectual property offices (reimbursement until 75 percent), as well as for trademarks filed through the Madrid International System and designs filed through the Hague International System (up to 50 percent reimbursement). Legal fees are excluded from voucher coverage.

You can apply from January 23, 2023, to December 8, 2023, keeping in mind that funds are limited and disbursed on a first-come, first-served basis.

The grant application must be submitted online, using the template (eForm) available at https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/it/help-sme-fund-2023 and attaching documents to demonstrate the necessary subjective requirements.

Before starting the application process for the SME Fund, it is necessary to have already defined a clear IP protection strategy. Therefore, it is necessary to have all information and designs related to your IP assets (e.g., trademarks and logos, inventions, new technologies, original software, new designs, unique processes, etc.).

Clovers Law Firm is available for any additional assistance or information you may wish to have regarding the procedure to obtain EU funding.

Thom Browne wins against adidas in stripes war

New York designer Thom Browne's company (part of the Ermenegildo Zegna Group since 2018) recently prevailed in a dispute brought by adidas before the District Court for the Southern District of New York to protect its famous trademark consisting of the characteristic three parallel stripes. The U.S. Court recognised that Thom Browne, a designer known for his high-end tailored clothing, had not infringed the German multinational company's trademark rights by affixing a motif consisting of four parallel stripes to his clothing and footwear models.

In reality, the trademark dispute between the two companies had already been pending for a few years. Indeed, as early as 2018, adidas had filed an opposition before the European Union intellectual property office (EUIPO) against a Community trademark application filed by Thom Browne to protect a sign consisting of four parallel stripes. That opposition was followed in 2020 by other oppositions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in which adidas challenged three trademark applications for red, white and blue stripes to distinguish the footwear produced by the New York designer. adidas considered that all of the above-mentioned trademarks applied for by Thom Browne were confusingly similar with its own earlier registrations claiming the famous three stripes.

Returning to the current decision of the Southern District Court of New York, the German sportswear giant had filed a lawsuit against Thom Browne in June 2021, claiming that Thom Browne's use of a sign consisting of parallel stripes infringed its trademark rights and constituted confusingly unfair competition in the sportswear sector.

In fact, the German company claimed that Thom Browne's use of a mark similar to its own famous three-stripe mark used by adidas for over fifty years caused confusion among consumers as to the origin of the goods themselves, or otherwise led them to believe that there was some collaboration or affiliation between the two companies. In particular, adidas challenged Thom Browne's use of the stripes in a manner similar to its own three-stripes sign, thereby creating confusion in both the aesthetic appearance and the overall commercial impression that such products provided. adidas claimed that, in particular, the products in the category of sportswear and sports shoes manufactured by the American company were identical to the same categories of products that had long been marked with its own three-stripe mark.

In addition to the obvious similarities between the trademarks of the parties, adidas' accusation was also strongly focused on the element of competition because, in order to ground its claim for damages of approximately $8 million, the German company had pointed out to the U.S. judge that Thom Browne was not only using the four stripes in its core business, i.e. high fashion clothing, but was invading in an increasingly aggressive manner the sportswear segment and in general the sectors where adidas is market leader. And this not only with the expansion of its sportswear range, but also through promotional agreements such as the one concluded by Thom Browne with the famous Spanish club F.C. Barcelona.

Arguing the total difference between the respective distribution channels of luxury and sportswear, as well as the wide gap between the prices of the respective products, the American company's defensive argument was obviously centred on the absence of any risk of confusion for consumers. Perhaps more interesting and less obvious is what Thom Browne's defence also argued in noting how adidas waited a long time before taking legal action against its own use of the stripes. As already did in other jurisdictions, also before of the New York Court Thom Browne pointed out that adidas had already objected to Thom Browne's use of three horizontal stripes on his garments as early as 2007, but then tolerated for a long time the use of four parallel horizontal stripes on his apparel products, which Thom Browne had begun on purpose in order to distance himself as far as possible from the German company's trademarks.

In essence, Thom Browne thus argued that adidas' delay in taking action to prevent him from using its own four-stripe trademark was unreasonably long because the German sportswear giant knew, or reasonably should have known, that Thom Browne was using a four horizontal stripes design. For the New York designer's counsel, this would also have constituted implicit proof that the respective striped brands had in fact co-existed on the market for a long time without adidas having suffered any damage.

While Thom Browne obviously welcomed his own acquittal, pointing out that for over twenty years his company has been an innovative brand in the luxury fashion segment, where it offers a completely unique and distinctive design that combines classic tailoring with American sportswear sensibilities. On the other hand, adidas has already declared that it will appeal the New York District Court ruling, a decision that not surprisingly comes on top of other negative ones suffered by the German multinational in the EUIPO and that have already called into question the distinctive character of its three-stripe brand.

Juventus gets the first Italian NFT decision

While all those in the IP law world were busy following the developments of the two most famous international cases on the interference between trademark rights and NFTs (the one pending between the French maison Hermès and the American artist Mason Rothschild and the one between Nike and the second-hand goods retailer StockX), on last July 20th, the specialised Industrial Property Section of the Court of Rome issued the first decision, not only in Italy, but at European level on NFTs. A decision that will surely become a benchmark in this matter.

It was a first degree preliminary injunction order (not appealed) issued at the end of a preliminary injunction proceedings promoted by the Italian football club F.C. Juventus S.p.A. against Blockeras S.r.l., a company producing Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) associated with digital cards. In particular, the NFT incriminated concerned the representation of the famous former Juventus footballer Christian Vieri, portrayed while wearing the shirt of the Turin football club on which the applicant's trademarks were clearly visible.

Accepting Juventus’ requests, the Court of Rome issued a preliminary order which substantially prevented Blockeras S.r.l. from continuing the production, commercialization, promotion and offer for sale in any way of the NFT and digital content challenged by the plaintiff. This decision, besides being rendered by an Italian Judge, is objectively an important novelty as it establishes some important legal principles also in the field of NFTs. First of all, it should be noted that the Roman Court decided to keep the NFTs distinct from the other digital contents contested by Juventus. In fact, the Court of Rome has legally defined NFTs as "unique digital certificates, registered in a blockchain, used as a means to register the ownership of an object, such as a digital work of art or a collector's item", thus adopting the definition already contained in the EUIPO Draft Guideline 2023 edition (see https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/nl/draft-guidelines-2023).

Another interesting point is that the Court has given decisive importance to the acknowledged reputation of Juventus' trademarks, thus not attributing importance to the fact that Juventus had or had not registered its distinctive signs also in relation to digital objects certified (or not) by NFT. From this point of view, it is in fact important to note that the judge evaluated as sufficient that the trademarks of the "old lady" of Italian football were registered in class 9 of the Nice Classification for "goods also relating to downloadable electronic publications", thus espousing the current majority interpretation which considers this class the one that should be used in particular for the registration of trademarks intended to distinguish this particular type of digital goods (the NFT).

The decision is also interesting in terms of interference with copyright since it held that the principle contained in Article 97 of Italian Copyright Law, on the permitted uses of image rights, cannot be extended to the use of trademarks possibly and incidentally present in the image. In fact, the Court of Rome judged irrelevant the circumstance that Christian Vieri, in this particular case, had granted authorisation to use his image by creating digital cards that reproduced him wearing inter alia the jersey of the Turin club.

According to the Roman Court, such authorisation in fact does not exclude the obligation to request authorisation to use Juventus' registered trademarks. And this on the basis that such goods are intended for commercial use in relation to which the well-known reputation of the Turin team contributes to give greater value to the digital image sold by Blockeras S.r.l..

Lastly, it is also interesting to make some considerations regarding the possible practical problems of enforcement connected to the perimeter of the injunction granted by the Court of Rome: the respondent Blockeras S.r.l. was in fact also ordered to withdraw from the market and remove from each website and/or from each page of website directly and/or indirectly controlled by the same, on which such products are offered for sale and/or advertised, both the NFT and the digital content associated with them subject to the same injunction.

With regard to NFTs already sold and contained in the wallets of third parties, a practical problem of compliance with the injunction could therefore arise for the respondent, since these digital assets are out of its availability. In this respect, the substantial difference between NFTs and tangible assets (which are also potentially resaleable by first purchasers) is that, by the very nature of NFTs and the blockchain, NFTs are typically intended also for resale in the secondary market of cards (an aspect, moreover, expressly emphasised by the Court in assessing the existence of periculum in mora, the urgency requirement under Italian law).

Call for Trademarks 2022

DEADLINE : Desk opening from 9:30 a.m. Oct. 25, 2022 and until available resources are exhausted

AVAILABLE FUNDS: 2 Million Euros.

A share equal to 5 percent of the available financial resources is earmarked for the granting of facilities to proponents who, at the time of submitting the application for access to facilities, are in possession of the legality rating.

BENEFICIARIES and ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

  • MPMIs - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
  • With registered and operational headquarters in Italy
  • That are properly incorporated, registered in the Companies Register and active
  • that are not in a state of liquidation or dissolution and subject to bankruptcy proceedings
  • That are owners of the trademark objects of the application

Facilities aimed at facilitating the registration of Community trademarks with the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) and the registration of international trademarks with the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).

The program includes two lines of intervention:

  • MEASURE A Measure B - Facilities to facilitate the registration of European Union trademarks with the EUIPO through the purchase of specialized services.
  • MEASURE A Measure B - Facilities to facilitate the registration of international trademarks with WIPO through the purchase of specialized services.

MEASURE A

Eligibility Requirements:

  • Having carried out, from June 1, 2019, the filing of the application for registration with EUIPO of the facilitated trademark and having complied with the payment of the relevant filing fees;

ALSO

  • Have obtained registration, with EUIPO, of the European Union trademark that is the subject of the application. Such registration must have occurred on a date prior to the submission of the application;

For Measure A, the facilities are granted to the extent of 80% of eligible expenses incurred for filing fees and eligible expenses incurred for the acquisition of specialized services and in compliance with the maximum amounts provided for each type and in any case within the maximum total amount per trademark of €6,000.00.

MEASURE B

Eligibility Requirements:

Having carried out, as of June 1, 2019, at least one of the following activities:

  • The filing of the application for registration with WIPO of a nationally registered trademark with UIBM or a European Union trademark registered with EUIPO and having complied with the payment of the relevant registration fees;
  • The filing of the application for registration with WIPO of a trademark for which an application for registration has already been filed with UIBM or with EUIPO and having complied with the payment of the relevant registration fees;
  • The filing of the application for subsequent designation of a trademark registered with WIPO and having complied with the payment of the relevant registration fees;

ALSO

  • Having obtained the publication of the application for registration in the WIPO International Register (Madrid Monitor) of the trademark applied for. The publication of the trademark application on the WIPO International Register must have occurred on a date prior to the submission of the application.

For Measure B, facilities are granted to the extent of 90% of eligible expenses incurred for the acquisition of specialized services and registration fees in compliance with the maximum amounts provided for each type and in any case within the maximum total amount per trademark of 9,000.00 euros.

For Measure B, for international registration applications filed as of June 1, 2019 for the same trademark, it is possible to make subsequent designations of additional countries; in this case the facilities are cumulative up to the maximum amount per trademark of €9,000.00.

For Measure B, for international registration applications filed before June 1, 2019, it is only possible to request facilitation for subsequent designations made after June 1, 2019, in which case the maximum amount of facilitation per trademark is € 4,000.00.

Each company may submit multiple applications for facilitations, for both Measure A and Measure B, up to a total value of € 25,000.00.

For the same trademark it is possible to cumulate the facilitations provided for Measures A and B (if in Measure B the European Union is not indicated as the designated country) in compliance with the maximum amounts indicated per trademark and per enterprise. For the same trademark, it is possible to apply for both Measure A and Measure B relief in a single application.

If an enterprise can apply for facilitation for more than one trademark, an application must be submitted for each of them, otherwise the application will be inadmissible.

The facilities under this Notice cannot be combined, for the same eligible expenses or part thereof, with other state aid or aid granted under de minimis or facilities financed with EU resources (e.g. EUIPO - IDEAS POWERED FOR BUSINESS). However, up to 100 percent of the expenses actually incurred, the facilities are available together with all general measures, including fiscal measures, which are not state aid and are not subject to the rules on cumulation.

APPLICATION SUBMISSION

  • The application is filled out exclusively through the computer procedure and in the manner indicated at [www.marchipiu2022.it].
  • The application is submitted from 9:30 a.m. on October 25, 2022 and until the available resources are exhausted.
  • The application for participation, generated by the IT platform must be digitally signed by the legal representative of the company requesting the facilitation or by the delegated special attorney on the basis of special power of attorney.

Clovers remains at the disposal of clients to provide all the advisory work.

You deserve a break (from franchising) today!

At the beginning of the summer, the Italian Competition Authority (Agcm) closed a proceeding against the well-known fast-food chain McDonald's for abuse of economic dependence (in violation of Article 9 of Italian Law No. 192/1998), accepting the commitments presented by the party to eliminate possible competitive distortions in the market.

Following to the annual report presented by Agcm, the Italian Competition Authority had many occasions in the last two years to deal with of abuse of economic dependence cases like those involving Benetton, Poste Italiane and WindTre.

Italian law regulating abuse of economic dependance provides that – regardless a situation of dominance on a specific market- abuse of economic dependence occurs when the 'stronger party' of a contractual relationship succeeds in determining an excessive imbalance of rights and obligations of the dependent company, which may reverberate, over time, on the very balance of the market concerned and cause, for example, higher prices or lower quality and innovation on the supply side.

The investigation against McDonald's is about its chain of franchising relationship: in the case at stake, the former franchisees, (weaker parties in the contractual relationship), complained about having faced very rigid contractual conditions imposed on them by McDonalds and of having been subjected to a whole series of controls that made it, in fact, impossible to act with the entrepreneurial autonomy that should abstractly characterise the franchising relationship.

Fee-based training for potential franchisees, a very strict non-competition clause extended to the entire food and beveratge sector, the impossibility of negotiated derogation from the proposed contractual standard, and the imposition of a minimum threshold of annual advertising investments were just some of the restrictions that, according to the complainants, substantiated the reported abuse.

These elements as highlighted in the report of the former franchisees were considered enough by Agcm to commence an investigation against McDonald's.

The party chose to avail itself of the option of proposing binding commitments for its future behaviour and to submit them to the so-called 'market test', i.e. the publication of the same to allow competitors to take a position on the effectiveness or not of the proposed solutions.

In particular, McDonald's commitments concerned the elimination of training costs to be borne by potential franchisees, the lowering of the minimum level of advertising investment required, the possibility of negotiating changes to the proposed contractual standard, and the elimination of most of the restrictions provided for in the original version of the non-competition agreement.

The successful overcoming of the market test and the final approval of the binding commitments proposed by Agcm allowed McDonald's to close the proceeding without the imposition of a fine, but, given the public nature of Agcm's power to impose sanctions, the acceptance of the commitments for the future, whenever it closes the investigation does not shield the party from the possibility of the former franchisees bringing a civil action for damages before the ordinary judicial authority (Ago).

The Court of Turin rules on the exception to trademark exhaustion and Ambush Marketing practice

Recently, the specialized IP section of the Court of Turin ruled in an interesting case that concerned the application of the exception provided for trademark exhaustion in the face of a defense invoking the danger of the so-called ambush marketing.

Parties to the case were Basicnet, a leading apparel manufacturer and owner of the KWAY trademark, on one hand, and FIFA and Sony on the other.

Basicnet had become aware that, during the period from June 14 to July 15, 2018, in the official video of the song chosen as the soundtrack of the World Cup held in Russia, entitled "LIVE IT UP" (FIFA World Cup 2018), singer Nicky Jam was wearing a K- WAY jacket, from which the K KWAY trademark was first blurred, and then completely removed.

The video was visible throughout the World Cup and was at the time of the introduction of the lawsuit added on the UEFA website and various digital platforms including the Youtube channel.

Sony had been commissioned by FIFA to produce, among other things, the music track and related official music video for the World Cup to be held in Russia in 2018, which, as part of that commission, every detail related to the production was agreed upon, including the exclusives that World Cup sponsors had secured.

Once the contract with FIFA was signed, Sony would shoot the video clip of the event's official song performed by singer Nicky Jam. On the day of the shooting, the singer went to the set wearing a K-way jacket that was very unusual in its shape and colors as well as in being branded with a huge K Way logo in addition to the traditional colored zipper that distinguishes K Way products.

Sony’s managers present told the singer that it would not be possible to frame the jacket as there was no permission from the manufacturer and that Basicnet itself could be accused of ambush marketing by the Russian authorities if they show the jacked in the video.

More precisely, Sony officials represented to the singer that the jacket could not have been framed because of contractual commitments made by FIFA respecting the exclusive rights of official World Cup sponsors among which Basicnet was not one.

Sony had also represented to the singer that the use of the K-Way trademark could have led to objections from the Russian authorities, on account of the unlawful association with the event of a trademark unrelated to it.

Faced with the singer's refusal to shoot the video by taking off his jacket, Sony opted, as a fallback solution, to obscure the logo in the post-production stage so that once the video was shot the K-Way logo was electronically erased from the jacket.

Upon realizing the facts, Basicnet had requested Sony and FIFA to immediately withdraw the video and restore the trademark on the jacket alleging that the alteration of the plaintiff's trademark by the defendants FIFA and Sony constituted an infringement of Kway's national and EU trademark rights, as well as integrating an act of unfair competition

According to Basicnet's defense, the use for profit of a garment with a registered trademark affixed to it had to comply, even post-sale, with the legislator's choice to protect the registered trademark not only against the risk of confusion as to its origin, but also against the erosion of the promotional value embedded in the sign.

According to the plaintiff, the conduct at issue also resulted in a detriment to the image of prestige of the products and the reputation of the mark also in view of the fact that any manipulation of the mark constitutes a source of both direct and indirect profit for those who engage in it. Based on these arguments, Basicnet sought an inhibition of the circulation of the video and an equitable liquidated damages award.

The defendants, on their side, claimed that the challenged usage of teh trademark at stake had not been put in place for profit and invoked the so-called principle of trademark exhaustion arguing that such infringement would not exist where the cancellation of the logo would have occurred on a product bought by the singer and worn by him and not intended, therefore, for marketing. In such case the principles of exception to the principle of trademark exhaustion could not be applied, lacking in any case the subjective element of the infringement since the decision to proceed to the electronic cancellation of the logo would have occurred as a result of the need to comply with both the protocols to avoid violation of the exclusivity recognized to the sponsors of the sports event.

In addition, the defendants argued that organizers of such events are usual targets of so-called "ambush marketing," i.e., those promotional activities promoted to the detriment of official sponsors by other brands that are not official sponsors and that, often taking advantage of the absence of specific legislation, attempt to "latch on" to the event and gain visibility through unconventional marketing.

Italian Courts have already affirmed that "legitimate reasons for the trademark owner to oppose the further marketing of the products" exist, as an exception to the so-called "principle of exhaustion", in case of removal of the identification code affixed to the bottles of a product (in this case: a liquor). Indeed, such removal is likely to damage the reputation of the trademark and its owner, if only because of the image of lesser value that the manipulated bottles convey to consumers, with negative repercussions, for the sign, even on products marketed intact. It follows that the area, EU or non-EU, of marketing of the bottles in question is irrelevant, since there have been alterations/manipulations of the packaging and the product (Court of Turin 12.5.2008).

Moreover, Italian Courts in the past affirmed that "the use of the trademark subsequent to the first placing on the market of the product incorporating the right must not be a cause of detriment to the reputation and prestige attached to the distinctive sign, this constituting a legitimate reason for the exhaustion of the right not to occur" (Tribunale di Bologna 26.3.2010).

In the case at hand, the Court stated that Sony, during the post-production of the video, unquestionably obscured the KWay logo placed on the jacket at issue, which undoubtedly had a particularly distinguishing function for the product at issue, even taking into account the considerable size of that logo.

The Court found it clear that the thimble use of the product, obscured by the logo, constitutes a per se trademark infringement and, in particular a violation to its reputation and prestige. In this respect, therefore, the violation of Articles 5 of the Italian Industrial Code and 13 Rmue must be deemed to be integrated, given that no authorization by the plaintiff, owner of the marks in question, to such obscuration was unquestionably granted either expressly or tacitly.

In the opinion of the Court of Turin, the defendant's arguments that the prerequisites for the application of the aforementioned provisions on trademark exhaustion since there would have been no marketing of the jacket, the same having been purchased by the singer for the purpose of his own personal enjoyment cannot be shared. The Court stated that the exception is not pertinent because if it is true that it is not disputed that the jacket belongs to the singer, it is also true that it is precisely with the use of that jacket and the alteration of the trademark that distinguishes it that the video was filmed and disseminated worldwide, given the resonance of the event, with all the consequent commercial spin-offs to the benefit, even of the defendants.

It appears evident, therefore, in the opinion of the Court that in the case at hand there was no exhaustion of the trademark since the jacket, although belonging to the singer, was not used for the purpose of mere enjoyment in the context of the physiological entry into the economic circuit but specifically for the purpose of making a video intended for the promotion of an event of global relevance such as the World Cup Russia 2018.

Realization and dissemination of such video that took place precisely by the defendants. Nor can the thesis that the offenses committed lack the subjective element be upheld, where from the same narration of the facts made by the defendant party it emerges unequivocally how it was well aware of the conduct it had engaged in, the blackout having been carried out precisely by Sony in order to circumvent the prohibitions on the use of products not referable to the official sponsors of the event.

According to the Court of Turin, the plaintiff's position is, therefore, to be recognized as deserving of protection not from the standpoint of its right to see its trademark associated with the sports event in question - a right, moreover, not even claimed by the plaintiff itself - but from the standpoint of its right not to have its product logo altered and, consequently, not to have its prestige and promotional value damaged.

In this respect, therefore, the conduct engaged in by the defendants is to be considered contrary to the principles set forth in Articles 5 of the Italian Industrial Code and 13 Rmue as well as in Article 20 Cpi itself, representing the obscuring of the logo as a hypothesis of infringement.

Moreover, the conduct is also relevant from the point of view of unfair competition under Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code, since it is not disputed that Basicnet also operates in the market for the promotion of advertising videos of its products, and the dissemination of a video containing a Basicnet product modified without its consent in such a way as to alter its distinctive capacity represents a hypothesis of conduct not in accordance with professional fairness relevant under Article 2598 co. 3 of the Italian Civil Code.

For all these reasons taken together, therefore, the plaintiff's claim were be considered well-founded. Also not valid, in the Court's opinion, is the reference to the practice of ambush marketing made by the defendants. Such a practice occurs "when a communication campaign suggests contrary to the truth that a party is a sponsor of an event" (Advertising Self-Regulatory Code Jury 8.7.2014). The practice of ambush marketing is considered misleading, as it misleads the average consumer about the existence of sponsorship or affiliation relationships or, in any case, connections with the owners of intellectual property rights, which, on the contrary, do not exist (in this sense, Court of Milan 15.12.2017) and constitutes a particular hypothesis of unfair competition contrary to professional fairness that can find protection under the general framework of Article 2598,3rd paragraph, Civil Code (Court of Milan 15.12.2017).

In particular, case law has had occasion to specify that "with the figure of ambush marketing, the unfair competitor abusively associates the image and brand of a company with an event of particular media resonance without being linked by sponsorship, license or similar relationships with the organization of the event. In doing so, the same takes advantage of the event without bearing the costs, resulting in undue attachment to the event and negative interference with the contractual relationships between organizers and authorized parties. It is therefore a tort where the injured parties are the event organizer, the official licensee (or sponsor) and finally the public.” (Court of Milan 15.12.2017).

It is clear from the above that in the case at hand there can in no way be discerned a practice of ambush marketing on the part of Basicnet. The latter did not, in fact, carry out any activity associating its trademark with the Russia 2018 World Cup event, nor did it consent to such association being carried out by others. It was, in fact, the defendants who used the Basicnet product by alternating its logo in an attempt to make it recognizable in order to avoid incurring the violation of the agreements made with the official sponsors and with the Russian legislation itself. No activity and consequently liability can be attributed to Basicnet in connection with the incident where it only became aware of the incident following the dissemination of the video.

EPO Patent Proceedings and Precautionary Measures

The Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled on the interpretation of Article 9.1 of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights) in a patent dispute between two German companies, Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG, the patent owner, and Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG, the alleged infringer.

The ruling of 28 April 2022 came at the end of a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht München on an application for interim relief filed by Phoenix for the protection of a patent concerning a connection plug with a protective conductor terminal, which had been granted by the EPO but opposed by Hartig.

The Court of München found the patent to be valid and infringed, but could not issue the requested injunction because it was bound by the case law of the Oberlandesgericht München, which prevented the adoption of emergency measures for the protection of a patent as long as the validity of the patent itself was not confirmed by opposition or appeal proceedings before the EPO or by a decision of the Bundespatentgericht.

The question referred for a preliminary ruling concerned the compatibility of this case law with Article 9.1 of the Enforcement Directive, which provides for the possibility for the courts of the Member States to issue urgent measures against the alleged infringer of an industrial property right aimed at preventing any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right.

Firstly, the Court of Justice reiterated that the adoption of urgent measures for the protection of industrial property rights must always be subject to a 'fact specific' exam as to the the protectability requirements of those IP rights and their infringement.

Moreover, the very nature of the emergency measure must allow the stop of the infringement without having to wait for a ruling on the merits on the validity of the title and the relevant infringement in light of the irreparable prejudice caused by the delay that would be caused in the time needed to complete the substantive investigation on these aspects.

In that sense, the case-law of the Oberlandsgericht München would appear to be incompatible with this principle and to apt to deprive interim relief of its inherent effectiveness in so far as it makes the grant of interim relief subject to a further determination of validity by the EPO or the Bundespatentgerich.

In answering the question for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU thus concluded that Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Directive "precludes national case-law under which applications for provisional measures for patent infringement must be refused, in principle, where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at least, by a first instance decision issued following opposition or invalidity proceedings".

On the evidence of use of the trademark in nullity and opposition proceedings

Not everyone knows that once a trademark has been filed and registered, it must be put into effective use by its owner: the law - both national and European - provides for an initial grace period of five years from registration, after which the owner may be required to prove the effective use of his trademark.

Evidence of use can be requested both in opposition proceedings by the trademark applicant and in opposition proceedings by the trademark applicant, with the consequence that in the absence of useful evidence, the opposition is automatically rejected.

Similarly, the evidence of use of the trademark could be requested in the framework of a revocation procedure for non-use provided for at Community level by articles 18 and 58 European Union Trademark Regulation, EU 2017/1001. Also in this case the consequences are far from trivial for the trademark owner, since if the administrative judge considers the evidence insufficient, the trademark would be declared null and void as of the date of the request for revocation and therefore cancelled from the register.

Therefore, the use of the trademark is fundamental even in all cases in which the trademark is registered: it is not sufficient to have registered the trademark in a series of product classes in order to ensure the widest possible protection, if this registration does not correspond to a genuine use of the trademark within the terms of the law.

It is therefore particularly important for the owner to collect proof of use over time, especially once the five-year grace period has expired.

It is also very important to know what evidence of use is relevant to the administrative judge.

One of the most important pieces of evidence of use are sales invoices.

As repeatedly stated by the courts such invoices must show significant and frequent volumes of sales during the relevant period (five years prior to the application for nullity or, in opposition proceedings, from the time of publication).

It should be noted that offers to sell products bearing the contested trademark on websites are not sufficient in themselves to demonstrate actual use, at most they may be relevant together with other elements such as, for example, the production of supporting documents, packaging, labels, price lists, catalogs, invoices, photographs, newspaper advertisements.

On this point, the EU Court of First Instance recently expressed its opinion in case T-1/20 of October 13, 2021, rejecting the appeal of the company Mi Indutries Inc., a manufacturer of organic pet foods, confirming the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which had held that the extracts from the Internet site "Amazon.co.uk" where the goods bearing the contested trademark were put up for sale simply showed that the goods in question had been put up for sale, without however proving that they had actually been sold and without providing any information on the volume of any sales.

According to the case-law, the actual use of a trademark cannot be proven by probability or presumption, but must be based on concrete and objective elements that demonstrate the actual and sufficient use of the trademark in the market concerned.

According to the Implementing Regulations, furthermore, the evidence of use must cover the place, duration, extent and nature of the use that has been made of the contested trademark. It is also essential that the evidence covers the relevant five-year period: further evidence outside this period will only be considered secondarily.

Furthermore, the condition relating to the actual use of the trademark requires that it, as protected in the relevant territory, be used publicly and externally. In this respect, the Court made it clear that not only sales to final consumers but also to industrial customers and professional users (B2B sales) are relevant.

Finally, the Court pointed out that even if it is not necessary for the owner to prove constant and significant use over the entire five-year period in order to escape sanctions, the obvious absence of evidence for a significant part of the period means that the use is considered insufficient.

  • Intellectual Property

Is a pay-off (or slogan) registrable as a trademark?

Very often we are asked to register as a trademark a certain slogan (pay-off) and the answer is often not so obvious.

When we talk about pay-off in this field, we immediately think of the well-known “JUST DO IT” by Nike - which has over one hundred registrations worldwide - or the equally well-known "I'm lovin it" by McDonald's - which has also been registered by the American multinational worldwide.

However, the pay-off is not always registrable as a trademark, even though other forms of protection, alternative and different from the registration, are possible.

Recently, for example, the Court of the EU with the sentence of 30 June 2021 has rejected on appeal the application for registration of the figurative trademark

Goclean.png

by an Italian company manufacturing bathroom products, specifically for "flushing cisterns for WCs; toilet [WC] cups; water distribution systems."

Prior to this, other decisions at the European level, and not only, had also denied the registrability of certain slogans, noting their lack of distinctiveness: among them, the judgment of the EU General Court 30/04/2015 (joined cases T-707/13 and T-709/13) on the word mark "BE HAPPY" for stationery, giftware (cups and kitchenware) and toys.

Despite the fanciful and original character of the sign, the Community judges denied that the latter could perform the typical and main function of the mark, namely that of indicating the entrepreneurial source of the product or service to which it refers.

Similarly, in its judgment of March 9, 2017, in Puma/EUIPO, T 104/16, the General Court had denied the registrability of the Forever Faster sign for footwear and sporting goods, holding that the trademark would be perceived by the relevant public "as a mere laudatory formula or information about the desired qualities and purpose of the goods in question."

Otherwise, however, there are other precedents that have instead approved the registration of pay-off apparently not very dissimilar to the others just seen. Thus, the Sentence of the EU Court of Justice of 21.1.2010 handed down in judgment C-398/08 P (Audi AG) considered Audi's pay-off "vorsprung durch technik" ["Forward thanks to technology"] as registrable as a figurative trademark.

Audi.jpg

In this case, according to the General Court, "even assuming that the slogan 'Vorsprung durch Technik' conveys an objective message, according to which technological superiority enables the manufacture and supply of better goods and services, this circumstance does not allow the conclusion that the mark applied for is entirely devoid of inherent distinctiveness". The same judgment states: "All marks consisting of signs or indications which are also used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or expressions inciting the purchase of the goods or services designated by such marks convey by definition, to a greater or lesser extent, an objective message. Such a situation may in particular arise when these marks are not reduced to an ordinary advertising message, but possess a certain originality or richness of meaning, require a minimum of interpretative effort or trigger a cognitive process in the relevant public.

So how can we distinguish between registrable and non-registrable slogans?

The EUIPO, on the basis of the case law produced in recent years, has made available a series of guidelines (available on the site https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/1922901/1802830/direttive-di-marchi/4-slogan--valutazione-del-carattere-distintivo) useful for identifying when the slogan has not only an advertising value but also a distinctive character:

"It is possible for an advertising slogan to be distinctive whenever it is considered more than a simple advertising message extolling the qualities of the goods or services in question, in that:

  • constitutes a play on words and/or
  • introduces elements of conceptual intrigue or surprise, so that it can be perceived as an imaginative, surprising or unexpected sign, and/or
  • has some particular originality or resonance, and/or
  • triggers in the mind of the target audience a cognitive process or requires an interpretive effort. In addition to the above, the following characteristics of a slogan can contribute so that its distinctiveness can be recognized:
  • unusual syntactic structures
  • the use of linguistic and stylistic devices, such as alliteration, metaphors, rhyme, paradox, etc.

In the light of these guidelines and the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice on the “GO CLEAN” trademark, the picture seems to be clearer: without prejudice to the function of origin indicator that the trademark must have, this can also be fulfilled through an advertising slogan if the same is not reduced to a "simple laudatory formula". The trademark must therefore, first of all, indicate to the public the provenance of a product or service from a certain entrepreneurial source. Secondly, the trademark undoubtedly also has an advertising function. But when does the distinctive function of the trademark persist despite its distinctly advertising character? Clearer than the precedents cited above, appears the latest decision of the Tribunal according to which:

"41 - It is in fact sufficient, in order to establish the absence of distinctive character, to note that the contested mark indicates to the consumer a characteristic of the product relating to its commercial value which, without being precise, derives from information of a promotional or advertising nature which the relevant public will primarily perceive as such, rather than as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods. 42 - Well, in the present case, the relevant public will not need to make any interpretative effort to understand the phrase "go clean" as an expression that incites to purchase and that emphasizes the attractiveness of the products in question, addressing directly to consumers and inviting them to buy products that offer them greater cleanliness and better hygiene".

It could be said, therefore, that when the slogan is not trivial and obvious but imposes on the consumer a certain interpretative effort in order to grasp its meaning, it is a candidate to be accepted as a trademark.

It is good to remember that a fundamental parameter to evaluate the distinctive character of a sign is the "relevant public".

Therefore, a slogan can be registered as a trademark if it has sufficient distinctive character and is perceived by the relevant public as a sign indicating the entrepreneurial origin of a product or service and not just a laudatory expression or a simple promotional message: "31 Such a trademark must be considered devoid of distinctive character if it is capable of being perceived by the reference public only as a simple promotional formula".

A suggestion could be that of not immediately filing a slogan, but to wait until it has acquired a certain diffusion and fame among the public, a so-called secondary meaning, which makes it immediately reconnectable to a certain product (rectius: to a certain entrepreneurial source).

In this case, in fact, the distinctive function of the trademark is "saved" because it is guaranteed by the so-called secondary meaning.

Registered design protection prevails on unfair competition and look alike provisions (absent robust evidence)

The market for plant care products is shared by companies facing each other on the shelves of few specialized b2c shops like garden centers and nurseries, which mainly offer products for sale by type and allocate them in contiguous spaces.

To distinguish its products from those of its competitors, Vigorplant, a company which produces and markets potting soils and fertilizers, launched in 2019 a new range of five potting soils, characterized by packaging with a different color per product type and a new top-of-the-line product.

These packagings featured a peculiar division into two parts of the bag and the placement of three pictograms, exemplifying the performance of the product, in a specific area, in addition to the choice of a single color for each potting soil that it contained.

The top-of-the-line potting soil, had, its own packaging, colored with iridescent blue and was also registered as a simple design.

Shortly after the launch of this packaging, Vigorplant found on the market the products of a competitor, Tercomposti S.p.A., presented in packs that reproduced not only Vigorplant classification by color and its reference products’s stylized representation, but also the same pictograms placed in the same position as those on Vigorplant's packaging.

Sensing a threat of jeopardization of the commercial success of its new potting soils, Vigorplant applied for a PI injunction and seizure against Tercomposti's packaging, acting against slavish imitation and look-alike (under Art. 2598 of the Italian Civil Code) and, with specific reference to the packaging of the top-of-the-line potting soil, enforcing its registered design (pursuant to Art. 31 of the Italian Civil Code).

In examining the fumus boni iuris requirement, the Court took position on the infringement of the registered design, establishing that the enforced registration met all the requirements for validity set out in Articles 32 - 33 bis of the Industrial Property Code, namely: lawfulness, novelty and individual character. With specific reference to the latter requirement - despite the fact that it is not possible to claim exclusivity regarding those elements depicted on the packaging such as flowers, the earth, informative pictograms and the color blue - the general appearance of the bag was deemed to be well characterized by the specific arrangement of the above mentioned elements and by the predominance of the color blue with an iridescent effect, characteristics which were deemed not to be present in other products launched on the market prior to registration but, on the contrary, could be found in the Tercomposti bags, which created the same overall impression as Vigorplant's one.

Not differing sufficiently from the Vigorplant packaging design, the Court held that Tercomposti’s bags were infringing the claimant’s exclusive rights and granted an injunction, backed by penalty, against the latter with reference only to the product named “Superterriccio”.

The other bags by Tercomposti were not, however, deemed to be in breach of Vigorplant's packaging, as they diverged more from the overall impression created by the registered design.

From the unfair competition’s standpoint, the Court found that the claims of parasiticity and slavish imitation had not been supported by sufficient evidence: according to the Court, Vigorplant should have highlighted all the elements that could prove the distinctiveness of its packaging.

In the same way, the decorative elements with different colors and layout on Tercomposti packaging were deemed not to illicitly hooking to Vigorplant’s ones in a way apt to create that link between the two products which case law qualifies as look alike (i.e. taking over the characteristics of a well-known product).

Regard synchronic parasitic competition (which takes the form of the simultaneous resumption of all or many of a competitor's products), the Court held that there was not an overall resumption of Vigorplant's commercial proposals by Tercomposti.

In view of the findings of this case, it is clear that an action for unfair competition, in all its forms (parasitic, slavish imitation, tying) must always be supported by robust evidence to substantiate the claim.

Court of Milan, order of 4 May 2021

The Court of Justice considers valid the Trademark for the Shape of a single Groove of a Tire (Yokohama Rubber vs Pirelli Tyre)

A few days ago, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a decision by which it rejected the invalidity action brought by the tire manufacturer Yokohama against the trademark application filed by Pirelli to protect a mere part of the tread of a tire as a trademark.

With this decision, the ECJ reformed an earlier ruling of the EUIPO Appellate Division, which had held that the design of a part of the tread did not in itself constitute a valid trademark in relation to class n. 12 of the Nice Classification because the groove performed a merely technical and non-distinctive function. However, in 2018, the ECJ overturned this decision and upheld the registration of the disputed mark specifically for these goods as well.

Yokohama appealed this decision before the European Court of Justice, which has now issued a final decision in this dispute (EU:C:2021:431). The European Trademark Office (EUIPO) and the European Association of Trademark Owners of the United Kingdom have also intervened in the case.

As in the previous cases, the possible technical function of a part of the Pirelli tread was once again the subject of discussion before the ECJ. Formally, both Yokohama and EUIPO claimed infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 40/94 in the 2018 judgment of the CFI that was later appealed.

According to the ECJ, the CFI erred in holding that a single groove in a tire, which constituted the contested mark, was not in itself capable of performing a technical function within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 40/94 because the groove appeared in a tire tread in combination with other elements.

Contrary to the appellant's view, the Court of First Instance had not ruled out the possibility that Article 7( 1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No. 40/94 might apply to a sign whose shape is necessary to obtain a technical result which contributes to the functioning of a product, even if that shape is not in itself sufficient to obtain the intended technical result of that product. The ECJ added that, on the contrary, the Court of First Instance had found that the evidence presented by Yokohama before the EUIPO did not show that a single groove of a shape identical to that represented by the mark at issue could achieve the technical result assumed in the contested decision.

In essence, the Court upheld the General Court's assessment by which the contested mark does not represent a tread pattern and therefore does not consist exclusively of the shape of the goods in question (namely tires) within the meaning of Article 7(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No. 40/94. It represents at most a single groove of a tire tread and not a tire tread, since it does not incorporate the other elements of a tire tread.

Artistic value and innovative sculpting techniques

3D printing is a versatile tool that can be used to create anything from a simple pencil to an entire building, which can be scanned, transformed into an algorithm and then re-materialized by a machine that literally sculpts it in just 48 hours.

In the artistic field, the applications are potentially boundless, and today, architects and fashion houses are increasingly making use of 3D printers to implement their projects, containing costs and also reducing the environmental impact of production.

But it is in the world of sculpture that the use of three-dimensional milling techniques have come to the forefront with a recent Italian Court case which shows that, while it is true that 3D printing is a great opportunity for innovation in the artistic world, the widespread circulation on the internet of files containing information suitable for reproduction through 3D printers can rise new between IP owners and third party users.

This is what happened with a sculpture made with innovative techniques and designed in one of the European centers of excellence of woodworking: Val Gardena.

This place, which is known in Italy and abroad as the home of religious craftsmanship; in this market, the Demetz family has been active for generations in the creation of sculptures that today it designs and manufactures through the use of advanced methods.

In order to realize a statue commissioned by an American dealer in 2019, the Demetz Art Studio L.t.d., once completed the realization of a drawing and of a first wooden example, turned to a Florentine company to carry out the robotic milling of the statue starting from a 3D scan, which was delivered to the company in a special file, with the express indication to return it or destroy it and, in any case, not to make other specimens of the statue.

Once the milling had been completed and the statue delivered to the United States, the Demetz family noticed on Facebook a post containing a photograph, taken in the same factory where the milling had been carried out that depicted the same identical statue they had commissioned; following to a surprise inspection, they also found on site another copy of the statue being processed and its image inserted in a brochure.

Not having obtained the restitution of the file of the 3D scan, which allowed the realization of the copies of the statue, Demetz Art Studio L.t.d. commenced a preliminary injunction proceedings before the Court of Florence, asking for description, seizure and injunction of the file, the copies of the statue and the promotional material on which it was represented.

The Court granted an inaudita altera parte decree and, in confirming the measure, highlighted several aspects related to the protection afforded by copyright to creative works.

The first interesting aspect of the provision concerns, in general terms, the relationship between artistic creation and new crafting technologies: according to the Court, the creativity and authorship requirements laid down in law for the protection of a work of art are not lost when the same is transposed into a digital image and then mechanically reproduced, not even in cases where the realization of these stages of processing have involved the executive intervention of third parties.

Taking a position specifically on the illicit exploitation of copyright, the Court has disregarded the argument of the respondent who claimed to have used the image of the statue on the leaflets and brochures only to show his craftsmanship.

The Court held that even the representation and use of a copyrighted work show the executive skills of a craftsman constitutes an economical use, oriented to advertising and, absent the authorization of the author, it also integrates a violation of copyright.

By recognizing the creative nature of the statue, the Court of Florence applied art. 12 paragraph 2 of the Italian copyright law, which establishes that the author has the exclusive right to use the work economically in any form and manner.

Since the use of another person's work is aimed in this case at pursuing an economic advantage, such as gaining prominence and notoriety among the public, the system of exceptions and limitations provided for by Italian copyright law could not find application.

In fact, by virtue of Art. 70 of the Italian copyright law, copyrighted work can be used for free - and without any authorization from the author - in all cases where the protection of copyright is in conflict with preminent objectives and values that are often in antithesis with it (e.g. freedom of expression and communication, protection of users' privacy, artistic and scientific progress, etc.).

In this scenario, the 2019 Copyright Directive – that will be soon transposed in Italy - has intervened by making copyright exemptions (such as quotation, criticism, review and uses for the purpose of caricature and parody) the subject of mandatory regulation for all EU member states.

Court of Florence, order of January 7, 2021

The LEGO 'brick' is Protectable as a Community Model.

yulia-matvienko-kgz9vsP5JCU-unsplash (1).jpg


In a decision of 24 March 2021 (T- 515/19), the General Court of the European Union overruled the previous decision of the Board of Appeal at the EUIPO, which in 2019 had declared the famous Lego brick already registered as a Community model to be invalid. The ruling of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO had in fact established that it was not possible to protect as a model the well-known Lego brick because its shape is imposed by the functional characteristics of the product. In 2016, Delta Sport Handelskontor, a German toy manufacturer and competitor of Lego, filed a nullity action against the above-mentioned Lego model, claiming that it was contrary to the provisions of Regulation 6/2002 on Community design ("CDR"), which prohibit the registration as a design of products (or parts of products) whose external appearance (the object of protection) is dictated solely by the technical function of the product itself.

According to Community law (Article 8 CDR, as well as Italian law, Article 36 of the Industrial Property Code), products, or parts of products, the external characteristics of which are dictated solely by the technical function of the product, cannot be validly registered as designs. Basically, the shape of a product can be protected even if some of its features are functional, but only if the technical result to which they are predetermined can also be obtained with alternative shapes: in such cases, in fact, the designer's choice, although conditioned by functional reasons, is still discretionary. Furthermore, features of the appearance of the product which must necessarily be reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to allow the product to be mechanically connected to another product, or to be placed inside another product so that the latter can perform its function, cannot be registered as designs. However, the legislation provides for an important exception for so-called modular systems: by way of derogation from the prohibition of registration as a model or design of shapes imposed by the technical function, Article 8, last paragraph, CDR allows the registration of products or parts of products when their shapes have "the purpose of allowing the multiple joining or connection of interchangeable products within a modular system". Modular products are products characterised by interchangeability and modularity in a multiple joining system. The products in question must be designed so that they can be connected to each other in different combinations.

The exception is justified by the fact that in the case of modular systems (as opposed to spare parts, for which the exception does not apply), the imitator could enter directly into the market for finished goods by offering himself a complete and autonomous system competing with that of the owner of the first model. While the spare part is therefore a functional part of the product, the part of the modular system is itself the product and benefits from the exception under Article 8 CDR. Well, in a decision of 10 April 2019, the EUIPO Board of Appeal, at the request of the German company, had held that the Lego model was void because all the aesthetic features of the product were, in the opinion of the Office, solely dictated by the technical function of the product, namely to allow assembly and disassembly with the rest of the bricks. According to the Commission, that function is the only factor which determined the appearance characteristics of the product affected by the contested design. In particular, the Commission had taken into account the following elements: (i) the row of 'buttons' on the upper face of the brick; (ii) the row of smaller circles on the lower face of the brick; (iii) the two rows of larger circles on the lower face of the brick; (iv) the rectangular shape of the brick; (v) the thickness of the walls of the brick; and (vi) the cylindrical shape of the 'buttons'. The Commission had therefore held Article 8(1) CDR to be applicable to the present case. Furthermore, since the features of appearance of the product covered by the contested design, as identified by the Board of Appeal, must be reproduced in their exact dimensions in order to enable them to be connected, they are also covered by Article 8(2) CDR.

The Board of Appeal also failed to consider Lego's objection on modular systems under Article 8(3) CDR as inapplicable to the present case and out of time. Faced with the declaration of invalidity, the Danish company therefore brought an action before the General Court of the European Union in order to have that decision annulled. The General Court upheld Lego's application on the basis of the following considerations: (i) For a design to be declared invalid, all the external features of its appearance must be considered and imposed exclusively by the technical function of the product to which they relate. Otherwise, if at least one of the features of the appearance of the product affected by a design is not imposed exclusively by the technical function of that product, the design cannot be invalidated. In the present case, the Lego brick has a smooth surface on two long sides and this feature is not among those examined by the OEIC, although it is a feature of the appearance of the product which does not appear to affect its functionality. (ii) The General Court also clarified the correct assessment procedure to be followed with regard to the validity of a design within the meaning of Article 8 CDR: it is necessary, first, to determine the technical function of the product concerned, second, to analyse the characteristics of the appearance of that product within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Regulation and, third, to examine, in the light of all the relevant objective circumstances, whether those characteristics are dictated exclusively by the technical function of the product concerned.

In other words, it is necessary to examine whether the need to fulfil that technical function is the sole factor which determined the designer's choice of those characteristics, without any other considerations, in particular those relating to the visual appearance of that product, having played any role in the choice of those characteristics. (iii) Finally, the General Court's complaint concerned the failure of the EUIPO Commission to take account of the exception under Article 8.3 CDR on modular systems, which may well apply to the present case. The Lego brick therefore remains valid as a registered Community design with the consequence that the protection of 25 years from the date of registration applies to it. Moreover, it cannot be reproduced in its individualising features by competitors within the meaning of the Regulation.

Employee Inventions: Balancing Opposing Interests and Rights

sunbeam-photography-B7BnSfy0Lws-unsplash.jpg

It is not uncommon in the increasingly modern business world to come across employees who, through personal technical knowledge and potential creative skills, create intellectual inventions.

Well, in cases of creative production of the employee, the latter must be clear - from the outset - to whom are entitled the rights of economic exploitation of their inventions, on the assumption that the authorship of the work and the moral rights are indisputably recognized to them under Article 2590 of the Italian Civil Code.

However, the protection of the recognition of the paternity of the work by the employee must be balanced with the protection of the employer-entrepreneur who, by entering into an employment contract whose object is the performance of inventive activities, bears the cost and economic risk that - inevitably - derives from the uncertainty of the inventive result.

Our current legal system outlines a specific distinction between different types of inventions, maintaining the tripartition of the previous legislation between service inventions, business inventions and occasional inventions.

The regulation of inventions, which is generally referred to in Article 2590 of the Italian Civil Code, was initially contained in Royal Decree no. 1127/1939, now expressly repealed by Legislative Decree no. 30/2005 (hereinafter IPC), which analyses the three types of inventions in Article 64.

The rationale of the rules in paragraphs 1 and 2 and those in paragraph 3 of Art. 64 of the Industrial Property Code is completely different: in the first two hypotheses the basic principle of labour law that the results of subordinate work belong to the employer applies, while in the third hypothesis the general rule on inventions applies according to which the patrimonial rights belong to the inventor, with the sole limitation of the recognition of the right of option to the employer.

Paragraph 1 of article 64 of the Industrial Property Code governs the so-called service inventions, i.e. those inventions which the employee makes in the execution and fulfilment of the employment relationship in which the inventive activity is envisaged as the object of the employment obligation and which are remunerated for this purpose: in this case the legislation provides that the ownership of the inventions belongs exclusively to the employer, and that no additional remuneration is due to the inventor, who is attributed solely the authorship of the work .

With regard to the element of remuneration, it is worth specifying how the majority doctrine considers that in order to classify the case in the context of the first paragraph of art. 64 one must look at the duties actually performed by the employee, which is why the element characterising the case of service invention must be found in the object of the contract and not in the remuneration .

With regard to the so-called business inventions, the second paragraph of Art. 64 of the Industrial Property Code provides that they are made in the execution or performance of a contract or employment relationship but there is no ad hoc remuneration for the performance of the inventive activity. In this case, although the rights of economic exploitation of the invention remain with the employer - except for the moral right - the employee is entitled to a fair bonus for the inventive activity carried out if the employer or its successors in title obtain the patent or use the invention under a secrecy regime. To determine the fair prize, specific parameters are taken into account such as "the importance of the invention, the tasks carried out and the salary received by the employee, the contribution received by the employee from the employer's organisation" .

Finally, the third paragraph of article 64 of the Industrial Property Code governs the so-called occasional inventions made outside the employment relationship but relating to the activity carried out by the employer, cases in which there is no objective connection between tasks and invention. Unlike in the previous cases, in the case of occasional inventions, the ownership of the invention and the relative patrimonial rights to the invention are vested in the employee, but the employer has the right of option on the use, exclusive or otherwise, or on the purchase of the relative patent. The law expressly allows the employer to obtain the patent already obtained by the employee, but authoritative doctrine holds that the employer may also obtain from the employee the right to the grant of the patent, in the event that the latter does not wish to submit the patent application.

In the event of the exercise of the option or purchase right by the employer, the "inventor" employee is entitled to a royalty or price that is commensurate with the value of the invention, net of the sums corresponding to the aid received by the employer to achieve the invention.

In the event of disputes arising between an employer and an employee, jurisdiction has been removed from the Labour Court and is now unquestionably attributed to the ordinary judge - Specialised Business Section.

It should be noted that, pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of article 64 Industrial Property Code, without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge as to the ascertainment of the right to a fair premium (company inventions) and to the fee or fair price (occasional invention), the determination of the quantum is referred to a panel of three arbitrators, who may decide on the amount of the same with a fair assessment pursuant to article 1349 of the Italian Civil Code. The arbitrators will be appointed, two by each party and the third either by the first two arbitrators or - if they disagree - by the President of the competent specialised Section according to the criterion of the place where the inventor habitually carries out his work.


3d Printing and Fashion. A Focus on IP.

noa-raviv-graduate-collection_highres.jpg

3D technology and opportunities created by the introduction of 3D printers is disrupting the standard supply and manufacturing schemes of traditional industries like healthcare, art and even food.

The combination of advancements in printing technology, the more and more powerful personal computers, the growth in online commerce, and the rising market demand for 3D printed objects has caused a recent flare of 3D printing technology.

As 3D printers have become increasingly accessible to the public, websites and online platforms that enable the sharing of CAD files have grown in popularity as these websites enable the sharing of applications that enable the consumer to directly manufacture an object from a source file.

The availability of 3D printing to end consumers and the ability to create objects is also impacting on the fashion world as consumers are today beginning to enjoy certain fashion products which are 3D printed.

However, the “do it yourself” industry is also raising many questions on the effects and the lawfulness of this new manufacturing procedure and a number of legal issues have arisen in intellectual property law driven industries like fashion.

 

I.                    What is 3D printing?

3D printing is a process of making three-dimensional solid objects from a digital file by placing successive layers of material until the entire object is created. Each of these layers can be seen as a thinly sliced horizontal cross-section of the eventual object. In order to create a product through a 3D printer, users make a virtual design of the object they want to print or create, and then to prepare a digital file in a compatible program suitable for printing (usually a CAD file). Users can create CAD files from scratch when the appropriate file is uploaded in the 3D printer, and then printer creates the object layer by layer.

 

II.          3D Printing and Fashion

Improvements in the 3D technology has increased its applicability on the fashion industry which has begun experimenting 3D printing. Recently, multinational footwear maker New Balance launched a collaboration with Formlabs to manufacture a sneaker with upgraded 3d printed forefoot. San Francisco based Continuum is a clothing company that allows customers to design 3D printed bikinis (as well as other products) by inputting their body shapes and measurements.  Adidas, the giant footwear maker, has teamed up with a company called Carbon to make its first mass-produced 3D printed midsole. Carbon specializes in resin 3D printing and Adidas has tons of experience making sports and running shoes.

Consumers will be soon in a condition to manufacture their owns clothing at home. Is this something new? Not necessarily if we consider that before prêt-à-porter was introduced, certain bespoke clothing was not manufactured necessarily by tailors but also at home by family members of end users. However this innovative manufacturing system is shifting the designers capabilities from stitching to software programming.

Indeed well-known fashion institutes and design schools around the world have 3D printers on their campuses. They are also offering courses in the field of 3D printed fashion. These learning institutions are providing students access to body scanning technologies and wearable technologies. There is a good chance that some of those students, with exposure to new technologies, will end up launching 3D printed fashion products which will accelerate the mainstreaming of this concept and leave their sewing machines in a closet.

Also, 3D printed fashion involves turning movable/flexible material into clothing. 3D printed dresses can potentially be as revolutionary as the sewing machine was almost two-hundred years ago.

When 3D printing was first used in fashion, the process was quite slow. One of the first attempts at making a 3D printed piece of clothing took seven entire days with the printer running 24 hours a day. Plus, the 3D printers in those days did not offer flexible printing material. However, technology has improved. It does not take 7 days anymore and flexible printing material is also available. The flexible material is known as TPU 92A-1 and it can be washed and ironed just like normal cloth. FilaFlex is another flexible material used to make 3D printed clothing.

Most of the 3D printed clothing is printed using the selective laser sintering process. This method of 3D printing offers the ability to make intricate designs and achieve a high level of detailing which is a requirement with fashion and clothing.

3D technology will allow young designers to introduce their products to the world. Such designers have several challenges, including having to deal with long lead times and minimum orders. With 3D technology, emerging designers can simply print orders as they are placed rather than have to scrounge to obtain enough financing for minimum orders and being stuck with unsold stock. If nothing else, 3D printing will enable them to create a sample quickly and cost- effectively. The technology also provides opportunities for those designers to test the market on a small scale by printing limited quantities of their product to determine whether their item is acceptable to the marketplace.

The impact of 3D printing on the fashion system presents several peculiar implications typical of this industry. These issues stretch from intellectual property to distribution and sustainability.

 

a)           Intellectual Property issues

3D printing is an emerging digital technology that may disrupt certain areas of intellectual property law despite the its positive impact on the fashion industry.

Generally speaking, authenticity is also a potential issue that could affect consumers. How would a person know for sure that the design they are buying is indeed the work of the designer that is advertised?

Moreover the ability to quickly create, reproduce, modify, copy, transfer, share, post, and download CAD files for 3D printing has created complex intellectual property issues especially as the cost of 3D printers decreases.

As the manufacturing process is made easier with 3D printing 3D printers threaten owners of IP assets as fake goods can be manufactured by private persons in their homes. Indeed, 3D printing technology, is likely to create negative economic effects on holders of IP rights and their IP driven business models. The situation is not particularly visible yet, but as the technology improves and the prices for equipment and consumables goes down, 3D printing may become a mass phenomenon3D printing will potentiate the number of instances of infringement and overlap with other IPRs while exceptions, invalidity and exhaustion will be likely general infringement defenses.

This section will analyze the effect of 3D printing on three main intellectual property assets: Trademarks, Models and Copyright. 

 

1)           Trademarks

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. For certain authors, Trademark law is the most important form of protection for fashions and accessories being the most effective communication devices.[i]

Generally speaking, a trademark identifies the owner of the brand and prevents confusion among consumers. Needless to say, the fashion industry uses various types of trademarks. Traditionally fashion has used word marks to identify the goods of the manufacturers in the industry where it is common to find either personal names or fantasy names. The evolution of distinctive signs in recent decades has resulted in a variety of source identifiers other than traditional signs (eg, word and stylized trademarks). As a result, the legislature across the European Union and worldwide has broadened the capability for objects, actions, events and patterns, among others, to be registered as trademarks.

We therefore now commonly find that the Fashion Industry commonly files for the protection of pattern trademarks (which can be represented by an image that shows the pattern and how it is repeated) and position trademarks (which consist of a specific placement of a trademark on a product). However, where 3D printing seems to have a deeper impact, is on the three-dimensional trademarks, which are signs consisting of the shape of the goods.

However, many jurisdictions (like the EU) impose some limitations on registering shape marks. According to Article 4 (1)(e) of the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks,  signs which consist exclusively of: (i) the shape, or another characteristic, which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; and (iii) the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods, should not be registered. It means that the functional shape cannot be registered as a trademark under EU law.

As 3D printers mainly serve functional purposes, it appears that the protection sought by fashion designers under an EU three-dimensional trademark would fine severe obstacles in obtaining the registration of the shape of a product manufactured with a 3D printer. We have to remember that recently Nestle lost a battle before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for registering its Kit Kat’s four finger shape because the shape was functional and not distinctive.  Similarly, Lego’s three-dimensional red eight-stud brick shape could not be registered as a trademark, because the shape of the brick is necessary to obtain a technical result.

As many of the 3D prints will be functional shapes, these are excluded from the trademark registration but in that minority of the cases where a 3D print is distinctive but does not serve a functional purpose, it may be registerable.

However three-dimensional trademark find another obstacle when the registration is sought for fashion products.  In order to be registered as a 3D mark, the shape must also not have any aesthetic or functional purpose. If this is so, the possibility of protecting a product manufactured with a 3D printer under trademark law narrows down dramatically and the designer should then seek protection through a patent of industrial invention, utility model, or by registering models.

On trademarks, one last note is mandatory when we look from the prospective of a “do it yourself” manufacturer who creates products with a 3D printer. Needles to say that the 3D printing manufacturer generally has no right to use the trademark owned by a third party on the product manufactured with a 3D printer. However, he will always be able to claim general defenses to the trademark infringement. Under EU Law, these are generally “defensive” defenses like exhaustion, fair use, absence of genuine use and acquiescence, in addition to “counterattack” defenses like invalidity and revocation.

 

2)           Designs and Models

A design is defined as "the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colors, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation".

Designs may be protected if:

  • they are novel, that is if no design identical or differing only in immaterial details has been made available to the public;

  • they have individual character, that is the "informed user" would find the overall impression different from other designs which are available to the public. Where a design forms part of a more complex product, the novelty and individual character of the design are judged on the part of the design which is visible during normal use.

Registered and unregistered Community designs are available under EU Regulation 6/2002, which provide a unitary right covering the European Union. Protection for a registered Community design is for up to 25 years, subject to the payment of renewal fees every five years. The unregistered Community design lasts for three years after a design is made available to the public and infringement only occurs if the protected design has been copied.

Thus, EU Design Law simply protects the appearance of products as defined by their specific ‘features’. These features may be the result either of ‘ornamentation’ which is applied to a product (i.e. a two dimensional - 2D - image) or the product itself (a model - 3D).

Aside the Community Designs, each member State has adopted a legislation to protect designs and models at a national level.

It should be noted that under the Design regulation, the exclusivity granted has certain limitations. The most relevant limitations are found in Article 20 of the Design Regulation  which are: (a) acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes; (b) acts done for experimental purposes; and (c) acts of reproduction for the purpose of making citations or of teaching, provided that such acts are compatible with fair trade practice and do not unduly prejudice the normal exploitation of the design, and that mention is made of the source.

As far as the fashion industry is concerned, a notable case under the Dutch case law is the Nadia Plesner decision from the Court of the Hague.

Here the court balanced the fundamental right of Louis Vuitton to peacefully enjoy its property right (i.e. design right) against the artistic freedom. The court found that an artist was allowed to use LV’s design of a multicolor canvas as applied to one of its own expensive handbags as part of a drawing called Simple Living where the LV-bag was being carried by a malnourished African child (together with a ‘Paris Hilton-dog’). By the same token, even the use of the same drawing as the motive on a T-shirt was allowed for. The artist explained that the bag was used as a symbol and as part of an attempt to draw attention to what she believed was a problematic difference in attention given to celebrities and to the famine which was going on in Darfur.

Under this framework, users of 3D printing for artistic, political or satirical or other private purposes and even for spare parts, will find some freedom of expression beyond the limited structure of EU design regulation.

 

3)           Copyright

Generally speaking, we all know that copyright will protect the originality of a work and the creator’s right to reproduce it. This means that if copies of an original object are 3D printed without authorization, the creator can obtain relief under copyright law.

As we mentioned, anyone with access to a 3D printer (either at home or at a local print shop) is able to produce a tangible, usable product out of a digital design files (usually CAD files). CAD files are typically protected by copyright law and, for many business concerns, represent a highly valuable intellectual property asset.

On the other hand, despite its current and future potential importance to the economy, fashion can in some jurisdictions be awarded the same level of copyright protection as other creative industries.

This type of protection is sought by fashion houses in order to extend IP rights to products protected under the design regulation (which usually up to last 25 years) to a period of time usually equal to 70 years after the death of the author.

A fashion manufacturer who creates products with a 3D printer must always keep in mind that the creating a fashion product with a 2D printer can lead to a double step copyright infringement: the software file and the artistic and creative elements of the fashion product.

b)           Supply Chain and Distribution.

Traditional manufacturing is based on the premise of identical, high-volume production. However, such structures are proving increasingly insufficient when faced with the ever-growing demand for customization, faster turnaround times and more efficient supply chains.  The traditional approach to manufacturing sees raw materials sourced and products manufactured in large centralized factories. After production, the products are shipped to the end consumer.

3D printing introduces the concept of “distributed manufacturing”, which involves a digital network of decentralized production sites, spread across locations and connected by digital technology. Driven by digital connectivity, distributed manufacturing allows manufactures to simplify and minimize their material supply chains through online, digital platforms and data sharing. Distributed manufacturing could even involve producing parts in different locations before being assembled in a central location.

Distributed manufacturing can make supply chains more efficient.

Distributed production can reduce inventory, logistics and production costs in several ways. Since goods are produced close to, or at the point of need, production can move closer to the end customer. This not only eliminates costly logistics expenditure but also allows companies to produce goods close to their respective markets. Additionally, by storing a digital inventory as opposed to warehouses of physical stock, companies can also significantly reduce inventory costs. As far of the fashion industry is concerned, a better management of the inventory and stock allows important savings and reduces waste of unsold collections and products. 

With the growing demand for customized products, manufacturers must increasingly find ways to tailor their goods to the specific needs of their customers. Traditionally, having a single, custom item designed, manufactured and delivered would mean long waiting times and higher costs for the consumer. However, distributed manufacturing, with its decentralized, “scaled-down” production, offers greater flexibility and agility to produce customized goods, adding value at a comparable price to mass-produced goods. A good example is Adidas: the sportswear giant has recently opened what it calls “Speedfactories” in Germany and the United States. These fully automated factories have been created to rapidly produce small batches of personalized sneakers, and according to Adidas, the company is able to bring its sportswear to market three times faster than with traditional manufacturing. While the majority of Adidas shoes are made in Asia, building its Speedfactories closer to consumers in both American and European markets has led to a much quicker shipping and, therefore, a better customer experience.

Distributed manufacturing offers the opportunity of rethinking traditional supply chains. Raw materials could be shipped to distributed locations instead of one centralized facility, offering greater flexibility, for example. Another opportunity is moving shipping closer to the end customer, which would impact both manufacturers and shipping companies, who may switch to an “on-demand” production service as opposed to storing physical inventories. 

Last, 3D printing will allow companies and brands to create, in real-time, items tweaked and personalized by the consumer