The court highlighted that a rehearing is an extraordinary legal remedy that, under Article 81(1) UPCA, may exceptionally be granted only if a final decision is tainted by a criminal act or a fundamental procedural defect. it is not available for mere errors or disagreements over the interpretation of the law or the assessment of the parties’ arguments or evidence.

By judgment No. 1599/2025 of 5 May 2025, the Venice IP Court of Appeal affirmed that it is possible to obtain a declaratory judgment of infringement and the related injunctive and compensatory relief even with respect to a patent whose main claim has been declared invalid.

On February 18, 2025, Judgment No. 4131 issued by the First Civil Division of the Court of Cassation was published. The Court returned to the topic of co-owned patents, and particularly the applicability of the rules on co-ownership in such cases. The decision in question raised a legal issue of such significance as to justify a public hearing: in the case of patent co-ownership, may the invention be freely exploited by each co-owner, or, conversely, is the consent of the other always required?

According to the CdS, the combination of the elements – position of the billboard near the Football Village, slogan used, football shirt, flags of the nations participating in the event – constituted communicative “framing” capable of persuading the average customer to believe, erroneously, that Zalando was the official sponsor of UEFA Euro 2020.

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jaguar Land Rover, confirming the invalidity of four Italian 3d trademarks registered on the famous off-road vehicle “Defender” due to lack of distinctive character.

Can a Simple Geometric Figure Possess Distinctive Character?
This is the issue addressed in the judgment of 13 November 2024 (T-426/23) of the General Court of the European Union, which confirmed the invalidity of the trademark registered by Chiquita Brands LLC for the blue and yellow sticker attached to fresh fruit, including bananas. This judgment, the result of a long legal process, provides significant insights into the concept of distinctiveness in trademarks.

A recent interim order issued by the Court of Florence (order dated 7 May 2025) addressed the potential conflict between banking confidentiality and the rights of third parties.
In this case, an Italian company mistakenly transferred funds to an unknown party due to an incorrect IBAN, while intending to move the money between two of its own bank accounts. Notably, the company had indicated itself as the “payee” in the transfer order.

By interim order of 24 April 2025 – perhaps the first, and certainly among the earliest Italian precedents on the matter – the Genoa IP Court issued a particularly noteworthy decision concerning the application of the so-called breeder’s exemption to plant-related patents.

At the beginning of 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its much-anticipated judgment in Audi (Case C-334/22), which addressed the delicate issue of trademark use on spare car parts produced by independent third parties. The decision quickly drew widespread attention across the legal community, as it was seen to mark a new milestone in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the intersection of intellectual property rights and the automotive aftermarket. It was, arguably, the most influential trademark ruling since Ford (2015), and it triggered extensive commentary (IPKat here).

Most commentators, including me, viewed the judgment as a clear reinforcement of the legal position of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and many assumed it would pave the way for Audi's success in the underlying national litigation. Few could have predicted that the Polish court, which had submitted the preliminary reference, would eventually issue a ruling that ran directly counter to those expectations.

In the field of software—and more broadly in the realm of intellectual works—non-specialists often assume that the original copyright holder is the individual or company responsible for its creation. In reality, this is not always the case. In many situations, the creator and the holder of the economic rights are different parties from the outset.

This issue was recently addressed by the IP Court of Brescia (order of 14 April 2025), which was called to resolve a dispute between two former partner companies, both claiming ownership of  software developed by one of them, to manage the electronics of industrial machines manufactured by the other.

The search and seizure of evidence pursuant to the Italian IP Code, within the framework of know-how litigations, requires prima facie evidence of ownership and infringement of trade secrets in the strict sense. This was confirmed in a recent case brought by an Italian company before the Milan IP Court through a summary judgment application.

The Court clarified that the the exception provided for in Art. 7(2) of Reg. (EC) no. 6/2002 applies not only to identical designs, but also to those that produce the same overall impression on the informed user.

In an increasingly competitive and digitalised economic environment, know-how represents one of the most valuable assets for businesses. It is not just about data or technical information, but rather the combination of knowledge, skills, processes, and practices that form the beating heart of innovation and competitive advantage. However, the protection of this intangible asset is often underestimated or left to individual initiative.

On 17 December 2024, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO issued a decision in the PDO protection landscape, upholding opposition no. B 3207890 against the registration of trademark application no. 018918364 “CHAMPRICE”

A recent ruling (No. 1481/2025 of 26 March 2025) by the Turin IP Court on employee poaching and misappropriation of trade secrets offers a valuable overview of the “state of the art” of Italian case law on these matters.

The court acknowledged the validity but denied infringement of the enforced registered designs. In respect of copyright protection, it stated that artistic value is still required by the Italian law notwithstanding the ECJ Cofemel decision.

According to the decision, the court of an EU country in which the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction to rule on patent infringement committed in another EU or non-EU country even if a validity defence is raised. In the case of a non-EU country, the court may also have jurisdiction to rule on the validity defence with inter partes effect.

Italian Law No. 143 of October 7, 2024, converting the so-called Omnibus Decree (Italian Law Decree No. 113 of August 10, 2024, concerning urgent fiscal measures, extensions of legislative deadlines and economic interventions), has introduced a number of new obligations and responsibilities, for Internet Service Providers, including some carrying criminal charges.

Our firm, Martini Manna & Partners, successfully assisted a world-leading company in the boiler industry in an interim dispute concerning the search order on know-how before the IP Court of Brescia.

On October 8th, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published the Guidelines 1/2024 on the processing of personal data based on Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. These guidelines analyse the criteria outlined in Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR that data controllers must meet in order to lawfully process personal data necessary for the “legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party.” According to the Board, legitimate interest criterion should not be treated as a "last resort" for unusual or unexpected situations where other legal bases are deemed inapplicable, nor should it be automatically chosen or its use unduly extended on the assumption that it is less restrictive than other legal bases.