US Trademarks after the end of the Cuban Boycott

This post faces the problems  by international brands, returning to countries after years of boycotts. Some of you may recall the trademarks problems faced by multinationals in South Africa in the Apartheid era, only to find that other were mischievously using their brands.  There are some parallels with the situation in Cuba today, though the politics are different -- and so too is the legal framework within which problems fall to be resolved.

The opening of commercial relations between Cuba and United States is tempting some individuals to jump at the chance to register US trade marks in order to force trade mark holders to negotiate their entrance into the Cuban market. This means the emergence of the Cuban “trade mark troll” and “trade mark hijacking”.

A group of people has started to file applications of US trademarks, including some very famous ones. One of these is a Cuban citizen, who has applied to register at least 65 well known US trade marks including CHASE and NFL; in most cases he has applied for logos or device trademarks.

Cuba is a member of the Paris Convention but it is difficult to prove that a mark is well-known in Cuba when products bearing US trade marks have not been present on the Cuban market for many years.

An interesting and important exception to the territoriality principle in Cuban law can be found in the little-known General Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection (Washington 1929). This convention remains valid and in force today in all original contracting countries. Unlike the Paris Convention priority right, it is neither limited in time nor applied as of right. It is unlike the Paris Convention’s “well-known marks” protection in that the senior user does not have to prove fame in the country in which it seeks protection, but merely that the junior user was aware of the senior user’s rights in a member country.

Does the Cuban Trade Mark Office have the legal and political ability to enforce the provisions of the Washington Convention? This is a big question.

Sound and colors Protected are now protected as Trademarks in Japan.

On April 1, 2015, the Trademark Act 2014 has been amended to broaden the scope of trademark protection in Japan to encompass the following:

– Trademarks consisting of sounds, colors, holograms, motion and position;

– Regional collective trademarks.

However, the registration of olfactory and taste marks remains unfeasible in Japan.

As concerns sound marks, registration was already acknowledged by the former Japanese law for simple or musical sounds. Henceforth, the protection will be extended to very brief sound clips, provided that the marks are represented by a sound spectrogram or a musical score. On the other hand, music titles or composers names cannot be protected as trademarks.

The Japanese Patent Office also makes it clear that to register one or more colors as a trademark, the application must include a drawing or a picture indicative of the color or colors. However, the application for such a trademark will not be accepted if letters or numbers can be identified on the drawing or the photo.

This type of new trademarks is problematic with regards to the function of the trademark: it may be difficult for consumers to recognize them as indicators of the origin of the products or services. In this respect, the issue at stake is the manner in which the Office will assess the distinctiveness of these trademarks. Trademark applications based on a single color, the color which enhances the design of the product or a natural sound will likely be examined carefully by the Japanese Trademark Office.

The new trademark system provides an opportunity for rights holders to rethink their strategies.

Is Freedom of Panorma Under Attack?

On 9 July 2015, the European Parliament will vote on whether to abolish our right to freely take and share photographs, videos and drawings of buildings and works of public art.

“Freedom of panorama”, which is the right to take and use photos of cultural works located in public spaces — buildings, sculptures and public art. The Copyright Directive allows member states to create such an exception within their copyright laws but does not require it, so different countries naturally have taken different positions.

The UK has an explicit right under section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, originally dating back to the Copyright Act 1911. Ireland’s Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (s93) and Australia’s Copyright Act 1968 (s65) provide the same rights.

For comparison, the USA would be pale green on this map — the equivalent law, 17 USC 120(a), excludes pictorial representations of buildings from the architect’s copyright, but does not provide the same exception for public works of art.

In other countries — notably France, Italy and Greece — there is absolutely no such right. In theory, in Italy, for example, when publishing pictures of “cultural goods” (buildings, sculptures, paintings and so on) for commercial purposes one must obtain authorization from the Ministry of Arts and Cultural Heritage.

Recently, the Legal Affairs committee (JURI), has just adopted French centrist MEP Jean-Marie Cavada’s amendment to the report, removing Freedom of Panorama rights across the EU (and EFTA) member-states by adding the following text to the following paragraph to Julia Reda’s report to the Eu Parliament’s review of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC):

“Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorization from the authors or any proxy acting for them”.

A restriction to Freedom of Panorama to non-commercial use would therefore bring millions of Europeans into conflict with copyright law over their perfectly harmless, everyday online usage.

The restriction of Freedom of Panorama would also greatly complicate the business of journalists, professional photographers or documentary filmmakers, whose activities are clearly commercial, but who have for decades been able to rely upon the public space as a resource that can be used freely by anybody without having to negotiate a license first. If one goal of copyright law is to stimulate the creation of new art and information, this change would clearly be counter-productive. In contrast to some artists relying on the public space to create their works, the main source of income for architects certainly isn’t the sale of illustrations of the finished building.

It’s easy to see that the overall effect of a restriction of Freedom of Panorama for creators would be negative.

The Plain Packaging Saga

Two of the world’s biggest tobacco companies, namely Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT), have recently filed lawsuits against the UK Government over its plan to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. Both PMI and BAT argue that the measures deprive them of property in the form of trademarks, and are seeking compensation that could extend to billions of pounds if they succeed. 

“We respect the government’s authority to regulate in the public interest, but wiping out trademarks simply goes too far” said Marc Firestone, PMI’s senior vice president and general counsel. “Countries around the world have shown that effective tobacco control can co-exist with respect for consumer freedoms and private property.”

The measures, which are planned for a 2016 introduction, have been opposed by Big Tobacco companies from day one. The power of the tobacco industry to market their products has been slowly eroded, to varying extents, by legislation in countries around the world. In the UK, advertising was phased out between 2003 and 2005, and in 2012, tobacco products were banned from display in supermarkets and large shops.

In the claims filed to the High Court, PMI and BAT also claim the measures violate European intellectual property laws. The Department of Health responded  it would not let policy “be held to ransom by the tobacco industry”.

Lawyers for the Government are understood to be confident that all legal aspects of the new measures have been taken into account. But even if unsuccessful, tobacco companies may be hoping legal action will delay implementation or discourage other countries from taking similar action.

Indeed, as long as tobacco remains a legal product, then the owners of cigarette brands can make the argument that they shouldn’t be treated differently to other consumer products. 

Australia introduced a similar ban in 2012 with the aim of reducing smoking and is facing challenges at the World Trade Organization which say that the law creates illegal obstacles to commerce.

By Martina Clochiatti

The Court of Rome Rules on Copyrights Published on Facebook

The court of Rome reaffirms the application of the rules of copyright for the pictures posted on the social network by establishing that publication of photos on the Facebook page of the person who has taken them "does not involve the complete waiver of the relative copyright".

According to the Court, the freedom of use of the content posted by users by setting the 'Public' function does not cover the content that is published and which covered by intellectual property rights of users, for which the only license is the non-exclusive, transferable granted to Facebook". Under this principle the author of some photos published on Facebook was awarded damages against a newspaper that had published the same without permission.

The case stems from the publication of some photos on the personal page Facebook of a young photographer shot in nightclub in Rome. The photos then appeared, unknown to the author, in a national newspaper in support of a series of newspaper articles, related to the phenomenon of frequenting nightclubs by persons of young age and subsequently re-used by some programs television of national importance.

Swatch Can't Revive IP Row Over Panavision's 'Swatchball' Trademark

Film equipment company Panavision Europe Ltd. on Tuesday nixed a suit brought by Swiss watchmaker Swatch AG in European Union General Court alleging Panavision infringed its trademark with its "Swatchball" film editing product, with the court finding the companies' products are too different to constitute infringement. 
The three-judge panel in Luxembourg found that although both marks contain the word "Swatch," the watchmaker's argument that the relevant public is likely to link the marks falls flat because the products are dramatically different. Swatch was ordered to pay costs for the proceedings.
"The absence of similarity between the goods and services in question and the differences between their relevant publics ... are such that they are liable to exclude the existence of any link between the marks at issue," the ruling said. "[Swatch's] argument is inoperative inasmuch as the application for registration at issue explicitly excluded goods and services relating to timekeeping."

The decision also noted that the two companies target different consumers.

The ruling upholds a November 2013 ruling by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market's Board of Appeal.

Why Shutting down Pirate Sites is ineffective.

A few years ago Europe witnessed the largest piracy-related busts in history with the raid of the popular movie streaming portal Kino.to.
Police officers in Germany, Spain, France and the Netherlands raided several residential addresses, data centers and arrested more than a dozen individuals connected to the site.
The operation wiped out the largest unauthorized streaming portal in Europe and was praised as a massive success. However, new research from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre shows that the effect on end users was short-lived and relatively limited.
In a working paper titled “Online Copyright Enforcement, Consumer Behavior, and Market Structure” researchers examined clickstream data for a set of 5,000 German Internet users to see how their legal and illegal consumption habits changed in response to the shutdown.
One of the main conclusions is that the kino.to raid led to a short-lived decrease in piracy, after which piracy levels returned to normal. At the same time, the researchers observed only a small increase in the use of legal services.
It appears that while users of kino.to decreased their levels of piracy consumption by 30% during the four weeks following the intervention, their consumption through licensed movie platforms increased by only 2.5%,” the paper reads.
Based on the above the researchers conclude that if the costs of the raids and prosecution are factored in, the shutdown probably had no positive effect.
One of the policy implications could be to advise against these type of large piracy raids, as they do very little to solve the problem at hand.
However, the researchers note that the results should be interpreted with caution. For example, it doesn’t include any data on offline sales. Similarly, back in 2011 there were relatively few legal options available, so the effects may be different now.
That said, the current findings shed an interesting light on the limited effectiveness of international law enforcement actions directed at piracy sites.

Round Two in the Sky against Skype Trademark Battles goes to Murdoch's men.

British broadcaster BSkyB has won round two in its trademark infringement battle with Skype.

The European Union General Court found on Tuesday that the two names are too similar and could cause confusion. In 2012 and 2013 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) upheld Sky’s complaint, but Skype then appealed to the EU court.

In today’s decision the court said that there were a number of contributing factors to its decision - in particular, their “degree of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity”. Skype has attempted to argue that the “pronunciation of the vowel ‘y’ is no shorter in the word ‘skype’ than it is in the word ‘sky’.”

Skype also copped it over its cloud-shaped logo which the court found would be reminiscent of the standalone word "sky".

The argument that the word "skype" is highly distinctive and had even entered the lexicon for identifying voice over IP services was dismissed by the court.

Skype has one last lifeline - it can appeal to the European Court of Justice, but only on points of law and within the next 2 months. Calls to Skype and parent company Microsoft for comment were not returned at time of publication.

Is Pinocchio a valid Trademark?

With its decision of 25 February 2015 the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM partially upholding an appeal, has in fact confirmed the registrability as a trade mark of the word "Pinocchio".

In 2009, Disney had obtained by the Office of the registration of the word term "Pinocchio" for goods and services included in several classes. 

In 2012, Yves Fostier owner of a Community trade mark application which contains, the word "Pinocchio", but in a figurative trademark, had filed an application at OHIM to invalidate Disney’s trademark.

According to Mr. Fostier, Disney’s Trademark established an unacceptable monopoly on matters of law which entered in popular folklore and tradition. In any case, Disney’s application lacked of distinctive character, because popular and because it fell into the public domain. 

In the first degree the Office had, however, rejected Mr. Fostier’s arguments, observing that, on the one hand, the mere fact that a sign constitute the title of a story does not exclude the ability of the same sign to function as a trademark, and, second, the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the term "Pinocchio" was not capable of distinguishing the goods and services for which the mark was registered, nor he had proved that the term had become customary in a European language.

Mr. Fostier appealed the decision. 

This time, the Second Board of Appeal noted that, if a title is so well known to the audience to the point that it perceives the mark corresponding to designate primarily a title of a story or a book, that brand may be lacking distinctiveness. This will be more likely if it can be shown that several versions of the story have been published or that there have been numerous television and film adaptations, that have reached a wide audience. Therefore, although in principle the titles or the names of fictional characters can be registered and function as indicators of origin, it must be asked whether a sign is capable of being distinctive for the specific products and services covered by the mark.

According to the Second Board of Appeal Pinocchio belong to this special category of signs lacking distinctive character in relation to certain goods and services in Classes 9 (in particular film, video games, films, audio and video), 16 (children's books , books of drawings, cartoons), 28 (toys and the like), 41 (amusement parks and the like, theater productions, live performances) as consumers could be be led to believe that these goods and services are connected with the history and the character of Pinocchio.

Tsclex Lawyers to attend INTA 2015

Tsclex  will be attending the largest trademark conference of the year, with an eye towards solidifying ties with current clients and building new relationships with trademark attorneys from around the world.
 It is more important than ever for our lawyers to interact with their foreign counterparts to share common experiences and best practices to ensure that trademark rights continue to be strengthened in Italy.
Tsclex will be represented at this conference by Partner Gianpaolo Todisco and associate Martina Clochiatti. From May 2-6, 2015 the International Trademark Association (INTA) will hold its 137th Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, USA.

Headquartered in New York City, INTA was founded in 1878 and now has more than 6,000 members from more than 190 countries, and is recognized as the world’s leading international organization dedicated to the development and improvement of intellectual property.

To schedule a meeting with either Gianpaolo Todisco or Martina Clochiatti, please contact us at info@tsclex.com.
 

The Italian Supreme Court Rules on the "Alessi" Brand.

A few days ago, the Supreme Court ruled on the risk of confusion between a famous CTM trade mark  (Alessi) with the trademark "Exclusive Giacinto Alessi srl" which correspond to the name of the founder (Mr. Giacinto Alessi).

In the first two degrees, the courts had excluded any risk of confusion between “Alessi” and “Exclusive Giacinto Alessi” judging that the use of the latter was therefore legitimate.

The decision of the Supreme Court was however different according to the principles of limitation of the use of a surname which corresponds to a trademark.

The Supreme Court stated that "once a sign identical to the name of a person was validly registered as a trademark, the person who legitimately carries that name cannot adopt it (as a trademark) in sectors identical or similar to the previous trademark. The right to a name is, therefore, a clearly compressed in the economic and commercial sectors due to the prior registration of the name as a valid trademark.

The Court also argued that "Alessi"  is a  trademark  which has no links with the products / services offered and therefore stronger than the trademark “Exclusive Giacinto Alessi” which contains a descriptive term (the word exclusive).

Italian Radio Station Sentenced to Pay Overdue Neighboring rights

The Court of Milan, with ruling notified on August 2, 2015 sentenced that the nation wide known station radio RTL is obliged to pay to SCF, the Italian consortium of  record producers a sum equal to 2% of the gross receipts.

The judges of the court of Milan have ruled in the context of disputes brought by SCF in 2009 against the major Italian national radio networks. This past April SCF has reached an agreement with other broadcasters involved and judgment continued only against RTL that has not adhered to these arrangements.

The Court, after repeating the substantive and procedural legitimacy of SCF, sentenced  that in the absence of other agreements between the parties, the extent of the compensation for the direct disk or similar device due to the manufacturer in accordance with art. 73 L.A. is equal to 2% of the proceeds.

Copyright enforcement for graffiti?

If it sounds novel to apply copyright to graffiti art, that’s because it is: lawyers who work in this area say it’s not clear anyone has ever tried this in court. Copyright law could be extend to art that's on public walls? It very well may. Anasagasti, a rising star in Miami’s art scene, was the first graffiti artist to seek protection for his work: he hired a lawyer and filed a copyright infringement accusing American Eagle of stealing his work and looking for monetary damages.

Later, a large number of other artists filed suits against various corporations for copyright infringement. One was against the Italian fashion designer Roberto Cavalli for creating clothing, bags, and shoes that supposedly misappropriated a San Francisco street mural as its background print. All the artists claim their artwork was created legally and registered for copyright. Actually in the United States the requirements to obtain copyright for visual art are very low, there are only two requirements for an artwork to be eligible for copyright: it must be secured in a fixed medium and it must be original.
The lawsuits affirm that corporations have gone beyond any exception, putting the street art to use for their own commercial purposes. As Anasagasti’s suit argues, “In today’s fashion industry, affiliation with artists bearing such ‘street credibility’ is highly required by retail brands for the cultural reputation and access to the profitable youth demographic that it offers.”

How much is that street credibility worth? Both lawsuits spread some light on how could this value be measured. In Anasagasti vs. American Eagle as well as in the San Francisco artists suing Roberto Cavalli the value has been determined on sales data, including its software that tracks exactly how many customers viewed the ads and subsequently made purchases.
It’s not clear why the defendants wouldn’t have reached out to ask the artists for permission to use their work. They must have just thought that urban artists aren’t organized and aren’t going to think about copyright protection.

Nothing could be more antithetical from the “street culture” than luxury and glamour.

Seeking copyright protection may sound like the latest evolution of street art away from its outsider origins, but street artists have always pretended greater control over their work. Street artists don’t earn easily with their works, if corporations take advantages of their works, they deserve to be paid. If somebody's going to profit from this art, copyright may be just the instrument for ensuring that somebody is the artists themselves.

By Francesca Filipo

How are Moral Rights treated under Italian Copyright Law?

As other civil law countries, Italian Law recognizes moral rights under the current copyright legislation.

Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation.

All these rights can be retained by the copyright holder regardless of the status of the economic rights.

In Italy, it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is not regarded as an item of property which can be sold, but only licensed.

The purpose of the law is to protect the moral personality of the author as manifested in his work, provided it falls within what may be the subject of protection.

Italian Law places no time limit for claiming Moral rights; at the author's death the moral right may be claimed by his spouse and children and, in their absence, by parents and other ascendants. Each one of these can act without the consent of the other.

Moral right are inalienable and cannot be traded in any form.

What is the Artist's Resale Right?

The artist's resale right an “inalienable” right granted, in some jurisdictions,  to artists or their heirs to receive a compensation on the resale of their works of art. This right is often known by its French name droit de suite.

The directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament creates a right under European Union law for artists to receive royalties on their works when these are resold.  Member States may set a minimum sale price below which the artist's resale right will not apply: this threshold may not be more than 3,000 euros or 10,000 euros where the seller acquired the work of art directly from the artist less than three years before the resale.

The Artist’s Resale Right applies to the sale of artworks in the European Economic Area (EEA).  Artists who are nationals of these countries are therefore generally eligible to receive resale royalties.

Eleven European Union countries currently recognize “droit de suite” in their legislation. United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands being still an exception. Of the eleven countries which recognize this right, only eight actually do collect the royalty.

The law applies to all “works of graphic and plastic arts”. Works of art must be original and the criteria for the original status of engravings, prints and lithographs are defined in agreements between the authors’ societies and auctioneers.

In Italy this right is granted to artists and their heirs for seventy years after his death on the occasion of transactions of works of art or manuscripts in which intervenes a professional art market. In particular, are subject to “droit de suite” all acts of resale, if they involve vendors, buyers or intermediaries represented by art market professionals, such as salesrooms, art galleries and art dealers in general, with the exception of sales between private individuals. The sales must be reported, by the professional acted as the seller or buyer broker, by declaration to the SIAE, within the period of ninety days from the sale. , the submission of the sale proceeds and compensation for all subsequent sales, are entirely charged to the seller.

The organization in charge of collecting the right below on behalf of all the artists is the SIAE, which currently governs the rights of authors affiliated companies, in which the royalty is already in force.

The compensation is calculated on the sale price, net of tax, on a percentage basis differentiated in relation to the different echelons, are calculated as follows:

•4% for the portion of the sale price up to  50,000.00 euros; (*)

•3% for the portion of the sale price of between 50,000.01 and 200,000.00 euros;

•1% for the portion of the sale price of between 200,000.01 and 350,000.00 euros;

•0.5% for the portion of the sale price of between 350.000,01 and 500,000.00 euros;

•0.25% for the portion of the sale price exceeding 500,000.00 euros.

The total amount of compensation cannot be still greater than 12,500.00 euros.

The SIAE, appointed in Italy to collect payments on the resale right for the artists, published in the Official Gazette a large list of authors whose works have been the subject of a sale which led to the maturation of the resale right, for which, however, has not yet been claimed that right. The gap between the real amount of droit de suite percentage on the sales and the amounts duly paid to the artists and their heirs shows how difficult is to effectively implement this European principle. 

By Francesca Filipo

YouTube Threatened with Big Copyright Lawsuit

Global Music Rights is a performing rights company that competes with other collecting societies such as ASCAP and BMI. Its clients include Pharrell Williams, John Lennon, The Eagles and Smokey Robison.

It claims that more than 20.000 videos are not licensed. Royalties that could amount to hundred of millions of dollars.

CEO Irving Azoff says that Google Inc. the owner of YouTube has shown no willing to cooperate and threatened to sue the company for copyright infringement.

Google responded by accusing Global Music Rights of attempting to circumvent the DMCA.

Google already settled a claim with Viacom this year by claiming that no money changed hands.

What is Italian Sounding?

Protecting and developing products requires raising awareness about the historical, cultural and social heritage of our country.

Geographic origin is especially important for Italy, the European country with the most products registered as DOP and IGP.

The term Geographic Indication (GI) refers to DOP and IGP products as established by article 2 of European Community Regulation n. 510/06, OF 20 March 2006.

The matter of the fact is that the so called Italian Sounding Syndrome does not only concern food products: the phenomenon has reached enormous proportions, affecting products of all kinds, violating intellectual property and thus becoming a legally pursuable offense which is costing Italy 100's of billion.

Exactly that happened in Canada. Maple Leaf Foods registers "Prosciutto di Parma" as a trade mark,

produces some salted-dried pork and sells it under the Italian name. Next?

You guessed right: producers who make the traditional, original prosciutto di Parma can't call it by its real name in Canada because Maple Leaf Foods was more clever with the paperwork... 

What is the difference between the two you might ask?  Well...for one, Parma (the original ) only sells ham...

The Panther goes to Court.

By order n. 46868 filed in the Court on 13 November 2014, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court decided, to remit the examination of United Penal Sections on the following question: "if the introduction on the market of serial morphological toys, not bearing any brand, constituents the unlawful reproduction of articles protected by trademark is an offense according to Articles 473 and 474, or in art. 517

of the criminal code".

The case arose from the introduction into Italian territory of a batch of 21,822 puppets depicting a counterfeited

MGM "Pink Panther".

On the merits, the Territorial Court observed that the puppets seized strongly resemble the character "Pink Panther", which are a specific registered trademark and, therefore, as such, subject to trademark protection.

The Court is expected to rule in the next two months.

Is Rubik's Cube a Trademark?

According to the judgment of 25 November 2014 (Case T-450/09) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, "the registration of the shape of the Rubik's Cube as a EU trademark is valid. The graphical representation of the cube does not involve a technical solution that prevents it to be protected as a trademark. "

The ruling solves a dispute arose as a result a registration request in front of the the application filed  in 1996, by Seven Towns a British company that manages the intellectual property rights related to the "Rubik's Cube" - for the registration as a Community trade mark of the three-dimensional shape of the cube to "puzzle in three dimensions.

In 1999 Seven Towns registered the famous cubes as a European trade mark. In 2006 Simba Toy, a German company that manufactures toys, filed for declaration of invalidity of the trademark.

According to the Court, the thick black lines that are part of that structure and appearing on the representations of the cube drawing a grid within them do not make any reference to a rotation capacity of the individual elements of the cube and, therefore, are not a technical function.

Indeed, the ability of rotation of the vertical and horizontal bands of the Rubik's cube is not derived from or black lines nor the grid structure, but by an internal mechanism of the cube that is invisible on its graphical representations. Consequently, the registration of the shape of the Rubik's Cube as a EU trademark can not be denied on the ground that it incorporates a technical function.

The Court also notes that the mark in question does not entitle the owner to prevent third parties to market all kinds of puzzles in three dimensions with a capacity of rotation, since the monopoly of commercialization of the owner is limited to the puzzle three dimensions having the shape of a cube whose faces are posted grid structure.

Finally, the Court considers that the cubic structure grid stand considerably from the representations of other puzzles in three dimensions on the market. This structure is therefore equipped with a distinctive character that enables consumers to identify the producer of the goods for which the mark is registered.

The ruling can now be appealed before the Court of Justice within two months of its service.

Linked Out.

The most striking aspect in the strict regulation of the new Italian code of professional conduct, which will be valid from December 15, is the fact that it quite clearly excludes the possibility for almost as many as 100.000 Italian lawyers to use not only of Facebook Pages or online advertising, but even LinkedIn.

There seems to be little room for misunderstandings. In fact the new wording of article 35 clearly states that online communication for law firms shall be possible "only on websites with their own domain name without possibility of redirecting information from another website."

This rule in not only surprising because clearly out of time with respect to the current digital communication context, but also because it punishes inappropriate behavior, like the use of local directories or even Google Maps.

The new Italian professional code of conduct seems to preclude the possibility for a law firm to defend and improve their reputation through the use of digital media and comparison with users.

While other professionals such as architects and designers show a steady increase in the Net as a community space to create and animate discussion groups not only for professionals, the new Italian professional code of conduct limits competition within the legal profession and transparency towards citizens.