After (almost) exactly three years since a well-known Milan IP Court ruling settled a litigation between Yahoo! Italia and R.T.I.—the TV arm of the Mediaset group—in favour of the latter, the same Court, ruling on a new copyright infringement litigation between the same parties, issued a reverse decision, awarding the victory to Yahoo!

The IP Court of Milan recently issued a ruling of some interest in the matter of distinctive packaging, unfair competition and related damages claims (ruling no. 11010/14 of 17/09/2014).

By judgment of 18 September (C-205/13), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has returned to the subject.

By judgment No. 9855/14 published on 1 August, the Business Chamber “A” of the Court of Milan has decided the lawsuit filed by Sanofi against Teva for the infringement of supplementary protection certificate no. UB99P653 (“SPC ‘653”), which was owned by Sanofi for its CoAproval medicine (irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide) and allegedly infringed by the relevant generic drug from Teva.

In its judgment of 11 September in case C-117/13, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that Member States may authorise libraries to digitise, even without permission from right holders, books they hold in their collection in order to make them available at electronic reading points.

On 4 September, the French antitrust authority issued its decision in the proceedings initiated against Nespresso, for allegedly exclusionary practices implemented by Nespresso against competitors producing capsules compatible with its coffee machines.

The copyright protection of industrial design works in Italy seems to be at risk again. This is because of a rule introduced in the so-called “Sblocca Italia” (“Unblock Italy”) decree due to be published shortly, which would change for the umpteenth time art. 239 of Legislative Decree no. 30/2005 (Intellectual Property Code, “IPC”), already schizophrenically amended countless times in the past: see our post about it here, here, here and here.

An IP Judge of the Milan District Court partially granted an application for preliminary seizure and injunction filed by the well-known confectionery company Ferrero against one of its competitors, which claimed, among other things, an infringement of shape trademarks (Order of 08.11.2014, Docket No. 19325/2014, Judge S. Giani).

By order of 1 August 2014, the Labour Court of Milan rejected the motion of an employee who was fired by his company on grounds related to the use of Facebook and the Internet in the workplace (Labour Court of Milan, Docket no. 6847/2014, Judge Colosimo).

The ECJ, asked for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Court of Appeal, has recently delivered an interesting judgment concerning nature, meaning and the limits of the concept of “parody” as an exception of the exclusive reproduction right, right of communication to the public and right of making protected works available to the public.

In a recent decision the Italian Court of Cassation declared that the breach of an individual’s right to privacy is a tort that gives rise to liability under article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code.

On the AGCOM official website a new communication regarding the start of preliminary proceedings has recently been published pursuant to the Regulation on the protection of copyright on electronic communications networks, which came into force on 31 March 2014.

In July the Specialized IP Division of the Court of Milan decided on a claim filed by the high fashion house Fendi against Zara, a famous clothing chain now widespread all over the world.

By judgment no. 9086/2014 of 26 June 2014, Business Chamber “A” of the Court of Milan addressed some interesting issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and unfair competition.

By judgment published on 14 July (R.G. no. 43968/11), the Business Chamber ”A” of the Court of Milan has recently dealt with the issue of bad faith trademark registration, stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Legislative Decree 30/2005 (Industrial Property Code, “CPI”).

Recent ruling no. 8215/2014 of the IP Court of Milan is by no means a ground-breaking precedent, but it does provide a good example of cumulative protection of the design of a product.

A recent summary judgment of the Specialised Business Division of the Court of Milan (order of 9 July 2014, docket no.13161/2014) engages with the notion of boycott from a private law point of view. Conduct falling within this category may indeed be relevant from both the unfair competition and the antitrust laws perspective (see for an example of the latter here), under certain conditions. The Milan Court ruling deals with the former.

By order of 19 June the Business Court of Milan pointed out the difference between interest in an action and the danger in delay in interim declaratory judgment actions for the ascertainment of non-infringement (already discussed here and here on this blog).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) recently ruled that the representation of the layout of a retail store may, under certain conditions, be registered as a trademark (judgment of 10 July 2014, Case C‑421/13).

By decision of 1 July 2014, the General Court of the European Union (“GCEU”) gave judgement regarding the late submission of evidence in opposition proceedings against the registration of a trademark.