By order of 26 April, the IP Court of Turin dismissed the motion for preliminary injunction and seizure filed by Geox S.p.A. for trademark infringement against Imac S.p.A., the manufacturer of the “Primigi” branded children’s shoes.

On 29 March, the Milan IP Court issued an interesting judgment (no. 3925/2016) concerning trademark licence agreements, which clarified certain principles relating to their execution and validity.

On 3 March 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its decision in C-138/15 P, Teva v. European Medicines Agency (EMA) dealing with orphan drugst (of which we already talked here on this blog).

A recent comprehensive ruling by the IP Court of Milan provides a good example of cumulative protection afforded to industrial designs in the Italian legal system (Ruling no. 1935/2016, Chairing Judge M. Tavassi).

The European General Court (“EGC”), in its ruling of 24 February 2016, rejected the action brought by The Coca-Cola Company (herein “Coca-Cola”) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”), confirming the rejection of the application for a three-dimensional Community trademark consisting of the shape of its new contour bottles.

On 17 February, the Milan IP Court (Judge Mrs Zana) issued an interesting order relating to unregistered design protection and parasitic unfair competition with reference to the copy of the designs of some fabrics.

In its recent decision no. 302 of 2016, the Bologna Court division dealing with IP matters addressed the much-debated subject of the burden of proof in negative declaratory proceedings, specifically in the context of patent litigations.

By an interim order of 22 December 2015, an IP Court Judge in Naples rejected the application of a catering company seeking a preliminary injunction against a competitor using “ham” as a distinctive sign.

In a ruling published on 26 January 2016, The Florence IP Court upheld a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit waged by the historical fashion house Chanel against a locally well-known perfumery, which happened to be an official retailer of the former.

On 24 December 2015, Regulation (EU) no. 2015/2424 was published. This Regulation enters into force on 23 March 2016 and − together with Directive (EU) no. 2015/2436  − significantly changes the current European legislation on trademarks, reforming part of Regulation (CE) no. 207/2009 on Community trademarks. The latter will change its name to “European Union trademark” and the current Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) will change its name to “European Union Intellectual Property Office” (EUIPO).

Since 9 January – the date on which most of Regulation (EU) no. 524/2013 became applicable – disputes concerning online sales and service contracts concluded between consumers resident and traders established in the Union have a new Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) tool: the European online dispute resolution (ODR) platform, operational as of 15 February 2016 and available at the following website http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/.

With sentence no. 472 of 14 January 2016, the IP Court of Milan (Judges Mr Marangoni, Mrs Dal Moro and Mrs Giani) granted patent protection to a particular pair of jeans that can “enhance and shape the forms of the wearers, with particular reference to the gluteus area”, and ordered the defendants to return the profits derived from the sale of infringing goods.

On 30 December, the IP Court of Turin ruled as a precautionary measure for the protection of the registered designs of some showerheads. The subject matter is the same as we discussed here a few days ago in reviewing a decision by the Milan IP Court.

On 14 December 2015, the IP division of the Court of Milan ruled in preliminary injunction proceedings (docket number 40511/2015) on a case of alleged trademark infringement by means of the well-known Google AdWords service (a topic already discussed here on this blog).

With an order dated 28 December 2015, the IP division of the Milan Court granted provisional protection to the “wink” trademark characterising the Flirting collection of well-known fashion blogger and designer Chiara Ferragni.

On 24 December 2015 the Court of Milan, Business Chamber “A”, issued an interim order granting the preliminary appeal by Full Spot S.p.A., the company commercialising the well-known “O bags”.

On 1 December, the IP Court of Milan issued a judgment (no. 13487/2015) which granted copyright protection to a particular bottle designed by Ross Lovegrove, which was considered infringed by the glasses named “Sorgente” which are manufactured and commercialised by an Italian well-known company.

On 3 November the Italian Court of Cassation ruled in the matter of alleged infringement of a figurative trademark reproduced by a third party within a complex graphic pattern used for ornamental purposes. In particular, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal against a second instance ruling in which the Court of Appeal of Turin – confirming an earlier decision of the first instance court – ruled out the likelihood of confusion between an Italian figurative trademark owned by Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A (consisting of the iconic double lozenge) and an allegedly identical sign serially reproduced within a graphic pattern on the surface of some clothes and bags designed by Max&Co, a brand belonging to the Max Mara Fashion Group.

We recently talked here on this blog of the motion filed by Barilla against an Italian company (“the respondent”) that sells pillows with shapes and names that are similar to those of some of the applicant’s goods.