“Every transmission or retransmission of a work which uses a specific technical means must, as a rule, be individually authorised by the author of the work in question”.
This is one the main principles ensuing from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the its recent decision of 29 November 2017 (Case C-265/16).
The CJEU has just confirmed that the concerted provision of misleading information about product safety can constitute a restriction by object under Article 101(1) TFEU, when it is intended to reduce the competitive pressure resulting from an alternative medicinal product (Case C-179/16, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato).
Continue Reading Breaking news: CJEU ruling in Hoffmann-La Roche published on 23 January
The legal principle that minor differences to a weak mark can have a significant impact on the likelihood of a finding of no confusion was reaffirmed with a recent decision by the First Section of the Italian Supreme Court (Order No. 28818/2017).
By adopting Legislative Decree no. 35 of 15 March 2017 (Decree 35/2017) Italy implemented EU Directive 2014/26 on collective management of copyright and related rights.
The Directive and Decree 35/2017 identify two kind of entities which may be entrusted with the management of copyright and related rights: (i) collective management organisations and (ii) independent management entities.
Collective management organisations are owned/controlled by their members and/or are organised on a not-for-profit basis, while independent management entities are neither owned nor controlled by rightholders and are organised on a for-profit basis.
On 29 November Italy’s Antitrust Authority launched non-compliance proceedings against Ryanair, the Irish air line for alleged unfair commercial practices and breach of the Italian Consumer Code.
Following the spate of flight cancellations, on 25 October the Rome Administrative Court (TAR), ordered Ryanair to provide information to its passengers – either through easily accessible procedures on the home page of its website or by standard email or by sms – on how they could receive reimbursement, change the flights to alternative flights and receive other compensation. The cancelled flights occurred between 10 September –2 October and Ryanair was given a 10 day deadline to rectify the positon and ordered to provide a full written report to the court setting out details of all cancelled flights, to make the necessary information updates to its website and to inform all customers of their respective compensation rights. Ryanair filed a brief to suspend the order but this was rejected and Ryanair failed to comply with the court order.
The Antitrust Authority in initiating its investigations for non-compliance of a court order will look into the reasons for the cancellation of numerous flights which had been booked and paid for. It will examine whether these were indeed not due to unforeseen circumstances nor to technical operational matters nor due to other reasons outside the control of the airline as well as examining whether the information was conveyed to passengers in a professional manner: Ryanair risks monetary sanctions of up to Euro 5 million for the said breaches.
The Irish airline has 30 days to file defence briefs and documentation in its defence. A decision of the Antitrust Authority will be issued within 120 days.
On 1 October 2017, an additional set of rules concerning EU trademarks under EU Regulation 2015/2424 amending EU Regulation 207/2009, and codified under EU Regulation 2017/1001 (hereinafter EUTMR), came into effect.
The former provisions required that, in order to obtain registration, a trademark had to be capable of: i) being represented graphically; ii) distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
By abolishing the requirement of graphical representation, the reform aims at facilitating the registration of non-traditional trademarks such as sound, colour, pattern, motion, multimedia and hologram marks.
Continue Reading Registering non-traditional trademarks under the new EU provisions
The famous Italian luxury brand Ferragamo has recently won a case before the Court of Milan (judgement no. 7940/2017) concerning counterfeiting of its signature metallic-plate-ribbon applied at the tip of the “Vara” shoes, as shown in the image below.
The Florentine maison was taken to Court by two Chinese footwear shops owners located in Milan’s Chinatown; they requested a declaration of non-infringement for their products represented below.
Continue Reading No matter how rough, it is still counterfeiting!
With a one-year delay, the Italian government has implemented the EU Directive 2014/26/EU “on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market”, the so-called Barnier Directive.
On 11 April 2017, the Legislative Decree no. 35/2017, which implemented the Directive, entered into force.
This way, the ‘freedom of right holders to choose their collective management organizations’, as well as the principle of ‘equal treatment of categories of right holders and equitable distribution of royalties’ has finally been recognised in the Italian legal framework.
However, this new Italian provisions have probably not gone as far as many had hoped.
L’amministratore di s.r.l. che impedisce al socio non amministratore di accedere agli atti relativi all’amministrazione e alla gestione della società risponde del reato di “impedito controllo” previsto all’art. 2625 c.c.
È quanto stabilito recentemente dalla VI sez. penale della Cassazione con sentenza n. 47307 del 27 settembre 2016, con cui la Corte ha confermato la condanna dell’amministratore di una società a responsabilità limitata per aver ostacolato il controllo e la verifica delle informazioni relative alla gestione della società da parte di un socio che ne aveva fatto richiesta.
