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 patronymics as trademarks, which could have significant implications for the design and fashion industries. As is well known, many brands in this sector are identified by the founder’s name; examples include Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, and Valentino—in the latter case, the founder of the fashion house sold his stake in the company in the late 1990s.
However, it has often been the case that the founder’s continued use of the patronymic after the sale of the company has been deemed lawful by the courts, as it was used purely to describe the designer’s name and not in a distinctive manner.
Therefore, following 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 entirely permissible, as it referred solely to stylistic authorship.
In a very recent ruling, the Court of Cassation held that the use of a patronymic in the context of a trademark assignment creates a link that interferes with the use of the assigned mark, thereby elevating the patronymic to the status of 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 the famous San Babila store had closed its doors in 2003.