The Use of the Patronymic After the Sale of the Brand: The Fiorucci Case
The Court of Cassation recently issued an interesting ruling on the use of surname names as trademarks, which could have significant implications for the world of design and fashion. As is well known, many brands in this industry are identified by the founder's name, and in this regard, it's enough to recall brands like Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, and Valentino, the latter of which saw the fashion house's founder withdraw from the company in the late 1990s.
It has often happened that the use of the patronymic by the founder after the sale of the company was considered legal by jurisprudence as it was used in a purely descriptive manner of the designer's name and not in a distinctive manner.
Therefore, after the sale of the Fiorucci brand in 1990 by Elio Fiorucci to the Japanese group Edwin International, it seemed clear that the creation of a new brand called Love Therapy by Elio Fiorucci was absolutely legitimate as it was attributable to mere stylistic paternity.
With its very recent ruling, the Court of Cassation has established that the use of a surname, in the case of a trademark assignment, creates a connection that interferes with the use of the assigned sign, thus making the surname a de facto trademark.
It remains unclear how one can speak of a connection when more than 13 years passed between the sale of the Fiorucci brand in 1990 and the launch of the Love Therapy by Elio Fiorucci project, and when the famous San Babila store closed its doors in 2003.