The first Italian judgment granting a preliminary injunction concerning NFTs (that were deemed to be infringing trademark rights, see our post here) has been followed by another European judgment on the matter: at the end of October 2022, the Commercial Court of Barcelona issued a partial preliminary injunction, ordering the custody of the allegedly infringing NFTs in a wallet to be safe-kept at the clerk of the Court and a bond of Euro 1,000.00, pending the decision in the main proceedings.

This preliminary injunction fits into the broader framework of proceedings on the merits instigated by a Spanish collecting society (VEGAP, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos) against Punto FA, trading as Mango, namely the well-known Barcelona-founded clothing company, and aimed at declaring that Mango infringed the copyright on five paintings by creating NFTs and posts starting from those works and using them “on the Metaverse and on the NFTs’ marketplaces”, Opensea in particular, on social media and in the brick and mortar store of the clothing chain in New York. VEGAP also requested the Court to enjoin the defendant from creating NFTs and order them their withdrawal, along with damages compensation.

More in detail, VEGAP acted on behalf of the rightsholders of the works by Mirò, Tàpies and Barcelò, alleging that this unauthorized use of “Oiseau volant vers le soleil” and “Tète et Oiseau”, “Ulls i Creu” and “Esgrafiats” and “Dilatation” infringed both moral rights (right to the integrity of the work and disclosure of the work) and economic rights (right of reproduction, communication to the public and adaptation of the work).

In its defense, Mango argued that (a) being the owner of the copies of physical works, it has the right to publicly display them; (b) the creation of digital works starting from physical works and their display do not amount to unauthorized use (so-called “safe use”) and does not damage the authors; (c) it has correctly disclaimed that those digital works were the result of the adaptation of the original, physical works of those authors; (d) the NFTs have not been minted yet, i.e. have not been published on a blockchain, thus it cannot be downloaded, bought and traded but can only be viewed on the marketplace and (e) the NFTs had not been transferred into a wallet of the Group, thus it cannot access the NFTs while they are on the marketplace.

In light of the above, the Court is now called, in the main proceedings, to assess the extent of the rights of Mango as the owner of the original, physical works (or rather, of the material support of the works), i.e. to rule whether turning works into NFT goes as infringing adaptation of the work or whether, on the contrary, owning the work grants the right to exploit it in such a manner and, finally, whether Mango made a “safe use” of the works that not required authorization from the authors. On a preliminary basis, however, the Court recognizes that the motion met the prima facie case requirement, as it is questionable that such a right of display of the owner of the physical copies extends to the right of reproducing and adapting the works by creating NFTs incorporating those works or that it can be considered as “safe use”.

Thus, although the decision is issued at a preliminary stage and involves mainly procedural aspects, it preludes to a groundbreaking judgment on NFTs and copyright issues. If it is undisputed that the owner of the material support of the work gains no economic rights on the work itself – unless provided otherwise –, it is not as crystal-clear whether the digitalization of physical works is a safe adaptation of it. Moreover, as raised by the claimant, further uses of the NFTs (such as their minting and trading) imply the exploitation of other economic rights of the author, i.e. the right of reproduction and communication to the public. In such a doubtful context, careful due diligence of the rights acquired on the work shall be in order for the owner of the corpus mechanicum.

Even though the Court dismissed the issue on the merits, reserving the final decision to the judge of the main proceedings and focusing mainly on procedural issues – in particular, on the requirement of danger in delay –, the judgment is still remarkable, at least because of the – in principle – smart and innovative precautionary measure that the Court came up with.

As anticipated above, in fact, the Court, eager to give proper preliminary protection of the rights of the authors, ordered the custody of the NFTs “by the clerk of the Court, in a wallet to be made available by the claimant” until a final judgment is granted, on the following grounds.

First, the Court rebutted the main arguments of the claimant that feared that Mango could keep infringing the rights pending the proceedings on the merits, because the defendant proved to have ceased the use of the works and, additionally, the NFTs were withdrawn and de-listed from Mango’s showcase page on the marketplace and that, in any case, it has no access to those NFTs as they were not transferred to its wallet.

Nevertheless, despite these measures that the defendant itself has spontaneously adopted with the cooperation of Opensea, the Court found to be a certain yet partial danger due to the lack of safety guarantees that the mere stop from making available the NFTs on the marketplace offers; in fact, the withdrawal was temporary and, in the Court’s view, the modalities of the custody are uncertain, also considering that Opensea has been frequently attacked by hackers that have tried “to steal “juicy” NFTs, like those at stake”, thus the risk that the final judgment on the merits will have no effect is real. However, having Mango ceased to use the works both in the physical and in the digital world and not being the NFTs at the disposal of the clothing company, the Court addressed the injunction only to Opensea and with reference only to the NFTs – hence the “partial” danger.

Kudos to the Court, but kudos especially to the claimant who acted fast and avoided that the NFTs were put on the open market, where Court measures, as smart and innovative as they can be, could in practical terms face a number of “enforcement dilemmas”. In this case it is interesting to note that Mango claimed to have not minted the NFTs yet, something that could sound a bit strange but, in fact, looks possible under the NFTs creation “rules” of Opensea, which has implemented a “lazy minting” procedure, allowing “creators to make NFTs without any upfront gas cost, as the NFT isn’t transferred on-chain until the first purchase or transfer is made” (for a quick and easy explanation see https://opensea.io/blog/announcements/introducing-the-collection-manager/).

Also in light of such technical considerations, the decision by the Barcelona Court reveals itself as one of the most interesting among those first judgements – on a global stage – that, although still raw, are the first bricks in a wall of rules and case law that is being slowly built. Moreover, especially in our European and comparative system of law, it is important to glance at what other countries rule, to increase the chance of contributing to this wall.

An English machine-translation of the judgement is available here.

Al via dal 1° gennaio 2023 i nuovi obblighi per i produttori di imballaggio in tema di etichettatura, stabiliti dal decreto legislativo n.116 del 3 settembre 2020 in recepimento della relativa normativa europea.

Il 22 novembre 2022 il Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica ha infatti emanato il decreto ministeriale n. 360 del 28 settembre 2022 che, ai sensi dell’art. 219, comma 5, del decreto legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 (Testo unico Ambiente), adotta le nuove “Linee Guida sull’etichettatura degli imballaggi”.

Tali linee guida, le quali recepiscono le indicazioni della Commissione Europea in tema di rafforzamento del ricorso alla digitalizzazione delle etichette per facilitare l’aggiornamento delle indicazioni ed evitare barriere al mercato interno, sono il risultato della collaborazione durata oltre un anno fra il Ministero e il CONAI, il Consorzio Nazionale Imballaggi.

Come chiarito dal Ministero nella risposta all’interpello presentato da Confindustria nel novembre 2022, le nuove disposizioni non si applicano ai medicinali ad uso umano e veterinario, ai dispositivi medici e medico diagnostici in vitro, soggetti a specifica e più stringente normativa di settore.

Obiettivo primario perseguito dal legislatore, secondo quanto dichiarato nel comunicato stampa dallo stesso Ministero, è quello di supportare le imprese, a livello operativo e gestionale, nel rispondere agli obblighi di legge vigenti in materia, oltre a migliorare la qualità della raccolta differenziata degli imballaggi e aumentare la consapevolezza dei consumatori rispetto al destino finale di tali rifiuti.

In particolare, le linee guida specificano il corretto approccio all’etichettatura, distinguono le diverse strutturazioni dei contenuti minimi dell’etichetta a seconda del circuito di destinazione finale degli imballaggi (B2B o B2C) e contengono una pratica tabella di sintesi con i temi di maggiore interesse trattati, come di seguito riportata: L’etichettatura ambientale del packaging_sintesi

Secondo il Ministero, si tratta di uno strumento di supporto tecnico unico nel panorama europeo, che potrà essere fatto valere quale esempio virtuoso, sia per il metodo utilizzato, sia per i contenuti tecnici.

A carico di chiunque immetta nel mercato interno imballaggi privi dei requisiti previsti dalla normativa in commento, sono previste sanzioni da 5.200 euro a 40.000 euro. Essendo tale formulazione particolarmente ampia, capace di estendersi astrattamente anche oltre i soli produttori, sarà particolarmente essenziale adeguarsi alle nuove prescrizioni in materia.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has recently released the outcomes of its new study named “Women’s participation in inventive activity”, which aims at better understanding the presence of women inventors across different countries, time periods, technology fields and applicant types.

The study is set against a background of growing interest shown by the EPO in discussing the measures to overcome inventor gender gap and enhance women’s contribution to innovation. Recent research has in fact shown that a higher participation of women in inventive activities would benefit society in so far as much more inventive activity would be conducted in general (Bell et al., 2019) and research would focus on solving needs and problems that male inventors tackle too little (for example, women-specific health problems), resulting in greater breath and inclusivity of technology (Nielsen et al., 2017; Koning et al., 2021). These issues have also been the subject of the series of virtual roundtables “Women and IP innovation” hosted by EPO in November 2022.

The study focuses on women’s participation in patenting activity at the EPO, by examining all European patent applications filed between 1978 and 2019 (with occasional extensions until 2021), from the 38 European Patent Convention Contracting States. It finds that even if the share of women inventors has increased steadily over time, only 13.2% of inventors in Europe are women.

Due to the wealth of information available in patents, the latter represent a precise indicator of the output of inventive activities and allow to analyse individual inventive activity on the basis of various parameters (e.g. industries, geographies and technology fields).

More in detail, the study methodology consists, first, in attributing gender based on the inventors’ names and indicating the country according to the inventor’s address data in the EPO patent statistics database (PATSTAT). The patenting activity of women across regions and over time is then evaluated through the metric of women inventor rate (WIR), which measures the percentage of women inventors among all inventors in patent applications in a given year.

The WIR in EPO countries (13.2%) appears to be significantly lower than in the P.R. China (26.8%) and the R. Korea (28.3%), slightly lower than in the United States (15% in 2019), but higher than in Japan (9.5%).

Within the EPO countries, the highest WIR levels are recorded in Latvia (30.6%), Portugal (26.8%), Croatia (25.8%), Spain (23.2%) and Lithuania (21.4%), while the lowest ones are recorded in Austria (8.0%), Germany (10.0%) and the Netherlands (11.9%.). Italy (14.3%) ranks just above average, after France (16.6%), Belgium (15.8%) and Cyprus (15.1%), whereas Turkey is the country that shows the most significant rise in its WIR, climbing from 16th position in the 1990s to 6th in the 2010s (17.7%).

Differences across EPO countries may be linked to the countries’ technology specialisations and the contribution of their universities and public research organisations (PROs) to patenting activity. In fact, WIR variations by applicant type show that universities and PROs (including hospitals, non-profit organisations and governmental agencies) host the largest proportion of women inventors (19.4%), which is twice the WIR for companies (10.0%) and individual inventors (9.3%). It also shows that the WIR among university inventors is systematically higher than among companies or individual inventors, irrespective of the chosen technological field.

Looking at the variations of WIR by technological sector, chemistry stands out as the one with the highest WIR by far (around 22%), four times higher than the value in Mechanical engineering (5.2%). Chemistry also shows the most remarkable growth over time, jumping from a WIR of 11.9% in the 1090s to a WIR of 22.4% in the 2010s. Within the Chemistry sector, Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals have the highest WIR (30.7% and 30.2%, respectively), followed by Food chemistry (28.1%) and Organic fine chemistry (25.8%).

In addition to the WIR, the study also mentions other metrics that can be used to evaluate women’s patenting activity, namely the women’s share of patents, which attributes each patent fractionally to each inventor appearing on it and aggregates all women’s shares across patents, and the share of patent applications including at least one woman inventor. Both these metrics show an increase of women’s patenting activity in EPO countries, but while the women’s share of patents have increased consistently from around 2% in the late 1970s to over 13% in 2019 (following a similar but slightly lower path compared to the WIR), the share of inventor teams including at least one woman is systematically higher and increasing faster than the WIR. This data interestingly implies that the presence of women in patenting increases with the importance of teamwork and confirms women’s over-representation particularly in teamwork-intensive technology fields, such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (where patents are more likely than those in other fields to result from teamwork and especially from large teams of inventors), as well as in inventor teams on university patents, which are larger than those on company patents.

The study also compares the WIR to indicators of women’s participation in other types of related economic and scientific activities, such as the women’s shares in total employment, PhD enrolment, PhD graduates in STEM, R&D personnel, researchers and managers, for the nine largest EPO countries in terms of patenting at the EPO (i.e. Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, Belgium and Denmark). This comparison shows that in all nine countries the share of women among inventors in European patent applications is significantly lower than in any of the other activities. Although the share of women among R&D personnel, researchers and managers is low, it is still a multiple of the WIR in the countries concerned: for example, in Italy women account for 26% of R&D staff and researchers, which is almost double the WIR. The difference is even more pronounced when considering the share of women in total employment and in PhD enrolment (which is above 40%) or that in PhD graduates in STEM (which is above 30%, with the only exception being The Netherlands).

Lastly, the report analyses the degree of inventors’ internationalisation, which is a relevant aspect since international mobility of inventors contributes distinctively to knowledge circulation worldwide. By estimating the migration status of inventors using name and surname analysis, it shows that, in many EPO countries (including Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, United Kingdom, Finland, Greece, France, Italy), WIR values are higher for migrant women inventors than for native ones.

In raising awareness on the issue of inventor gender gap, the study devotes some pages to female figures whose recent inventions have completely changed our lives, and namely:

  • Katalin Kariko, who played a key role in developing mRNA vaccine technology recently used to fight the COVID-19 pandemic;
  • Elena García Armada, who developed an adaptable battery-powered exoskeleton, allowing children with disabilities to walk during rehabilitation sessions, and won the 2022 European Inventor Award in the “Popular Prize” category;
  • Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic, who developed method for growing new tissue outside the body using a patient‘s own cells, thus opening new horizons in regenerative medicine, and won the 2021 European Inventor Award in the “Popular Prize” category;
  • Madiha Derouazi and Elodie Belnoue, who developed a platform to produce therapeutic anti-cancer vaccines and won the 2022 European Inventor Award in the “Small and medium-sized enterprises” category;
  • Carla Gomes, who – with her colleague Nuno Correia – led the development of a mooring platform for floating solar farms which tracks the sun, rotating each solar panel to optimise efficiency.

In conclusion, although women’s contribution to patenting has been growing in the last decades, a considerable gender gap remains among inventors. In the words of the President of the EPO, Antonio Campinos, “increasing women’s participation in science thus remains a major challenge for Europe, as well as a key factor for its future sustainability and competitiveness” since the low participation of women in inventive activities also translates into reduced breadth and inclusivity of new technologies and may be affecting society leaving many human needs may remain unfulfilled.

Photo of the Ministry of Justice – Italy

As reported by the website of the Italian Ministry of Justice, a bilateral meeting took place on the 27th of November between Mr. Carlo Nordio, the Italian Minister of Justice, and Mr. Marco Buschmann, his German counterpart.

The meeting focused on two main points, namely the cooperation in support of the international investigations over war crimes in Ukraine and the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”). On this second issue, the press release of the Italian Ministry of Justice states that “the two ministers agreed on the need to continue working for the prompt solution of the last pending procedural issues before the system comes into effect. Minister Nordio also reiterated to his German colleague the extreme relevance for the Italian Republic of the establishment of the third seat of the central division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan, together with Paris and Munich”. The press release goes on noting that “the Treaty establishing the UPC, which has already been ratified by the Italian Parliament, provides for the start-up of the system with three seats for the Central Division”. The press release, in Italian, is available here.

This meeting takes place after the meeting Mr. Nordio had last week in Paris with the French Minister of Justice, Mr. Éric Dupond-Moretti. During this meeting, Mr. Nordio reiterated “the significance for Italy of the timely establishment in Milan of the third seat of the central division of the UPC, alongside Paris and Munich”. Both Mr. Nordio and Mr. Dupond-Moretti “agreed on the need for continuing to work toward the entry into force of the UPC”. The press release concerning the Paris meeting, again in Italian, is available here.

These meetings signal that the location of the third seat of the central division of the UPC continues to be a priority for the Italian government, even after the new government led by Mrs. Meloni has replaced the government led by Mr. Draghi, who had apparently secured a political agreement toward a relocation of the third seat to Milan, seen as one of the reasons prompting the Dutch government to drop its UPC bid (see here). The reference by Mr. Nordio to the contents of the UPCA as ratified by Italy is possibly an indication of one of the arguments the Italian government is relying on to object to temporary solutions implying a split of the cases of the third seat between Paris and Munich.

On November 4, the Court of Milan confirmed its first instance PI decision by which it ordered Cloudflare, a US company which provides i.a. DNS (Domain Name System) services, to block the DNS resolution of several torrent websites (and their aliases) which were found infringing Sony, Universal and Warner’s copyright by illegally making music tracks available to the public.

The first instance decision, appealed by Cloudflare, followed a motion filed by Sony, Universal and Warner, which claimed Clouflare’s failure to comply with AGCOM’s order to service providers to prevent Italian users from accessing the torrent websites at issue, as these websites were accessible through the public DNS service provided by Cloudflare.

As specified in our previous article regarding the first instance decision by the Court of Milan (here), DNS is a system that allows users to access websites by turning website addresses (meaning “www” strings) into numeric IP addresses, through a name-to-IP address conversion process known as “DNS resolution”. This system allows users to find a website by its name instead of its IP address, which is much longer and more difficult to remember.

In upholding the first instance decision, the Court of Milan specified that Cloudflare obligation to prevent the DNS resolution of the torrent websites at issue does not derive from a general monitoring obligation, but arises upon the reporting of the specific unlawful activity carried out through the public DNS service provided by Cloudflare.

According to the Court, the intermediary service provider’s obligation to intervene upon such reporting is independent of the specific classification of the service provided (mere conduit, caching, or hosting), as it applies also to mere conduit services under Art. 12(3) of Directive 2000/31/EC, regardless of any profile of direct co-liability of the provider in the unlawful activity.

In its appeal, Cloudflare also alleged that, from a practical point of view, the blocking measures requested by the petitioners could not be implemented without negative consequences on the accessibility of other non-infringing websites.

In this respect, the Court held that the technical aspects regarding the implementation of the order do not concern its admissibility, but rather its enforcement. In fact, according to the Court, there is no burden on the petitioner, nor on the Court when rendering the order, to describe the specific technical manner in which the order is to be implemented. Instead, it is the burden of the party to whom the injunction order is addressed to represent any technical difficulties in the possible enforcement proceedings carried out after the injunction (apparently enforcement proceedings have already been commenced in the Cloudflare case, as it appears from reading the decision).

This final decision of the Court of Milan is quite significant as for the first time an Italian court was faced with the question of how to deal with a blocking order issued by a public authority (and implemented by Italian access providers) that can be bypassed by simply using a public DNS service, such as the one provided by Cloudflare.

By upholding the original order against Cloudflare, the Court of Milan has set an important precedent, as it confirmed that online intermediaries offering these particular type of DNS resolution services can be required to take effective action if their services are used for music piracy. This is quite relevant for IP rightsholders, especially in light of the broad use of such public DNS services frequently made by users to bypass ISP blocking measures.

La decisione (la cui versione, non ancora ufficiale, è disponibile qui), assunta in data 11 novembre 2022 e annunciata il 14 (comunicato disponibile qui), anticipa al 1 gennaio 2023 la possibilità per i titolari di domande di brevetto europeo pendenti di richiedere un rinvio della concessione del brevetto richiesto in attesa della entrata in vigore dell’Accordo sul Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti (UPC).

La richiesta, da presentare tramite un modulo (fac simile qui) messo a disposizione dall’U.E.B., potrà essere depositata soltanto dopo aver ricevuto la comunicazione di “intention to grant” (Art. 71(3) EPC) da parte dell’ufficio e consentirà ai titolari delle domande di brevetto pendenti di attendere l’entrata in vigore dell’Accordo UPC e richiedere così direttamente la concessione di un Brevetto Unitario (entro un mese dall’entrata in vigore dell’Accordo UPC o con effetto immediato in caso di “early request” – anche questa possibile solo dopo aver ricevuto comunicazione dall’ufficio della “intention to grant”).

La data riflette la tabella di marcia prevista per lo stesso Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti, la cui entrata in funzione è prevista per il 1 aprile 2023 e per il quale, come noto, è previsto un c.d. “sunrise period” durante il quale sarà possibile esercitare l’“opt out” dei brevetti europei dal sistema UPC.

Si tratta di un’importante novità, che rende ancor più urgente per l’impresa italiana dotarsi di una strategia brevettuale che tenga conto del nuovo sistema e delle conseguenze che la scelta della protezione unitaria avrà sul valore e sulla azionabilità dei propri brevetti.

Il tempo delle scelte è ora e sarà fondamentale in questo senso un approccio strategico, avvalendosi della consulenza di team integrati, composti da consulenti brevettuali ed avvocati, per adottare la strategia più efficace sia da un punto di vista di costi che di futuro enforcement, tenendo conto dei vantaggi e dei rischi che l’opzione unitaria comporta. I nostri clienti più strutturati stanno già investendo molto in tale ambito, mentre percepiamo ancora una certa assenza di consapevolezza da parte dell’impresa italiana di minori dimensioni.

The Court of Rome sets a landmark precedent by granting an injunction against the creator of NFTs displaying images of a football player, reproducing without authorization the registered trademarks owned by Italian football club Juventus FC. This is the first known judgement by a European court holding that NFTs reproducing a third party’s trademarks without authorization are infringing and hence granting a related injunction.

Background

Juventus FC brought action seeking a preliminary injunction against a company managing an online fantasy football game based on NFT player cards, hosted on the Binance platform. Amongst other, the company produced NFTs reproducing the image of a famous Juventus former player. The cards displayed prominently a number of trademarks owned by Juventus, including the iconic black and white stripes pattern and the contracted version of the club’s name “Juve”, typically used by fans.

Upholding the arguments raised by Juventus, the Court of Rome issued a PI against the defendant,

  • enjoining the “production, marketing, promotion and offer for sale, directly and/or indirectly, in any way and form, of the NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and digital contents referred to in the motion for PI, as well as of any other NFTs (non-fungible token), digital contents or products in general bearing the image referred to in the motion for PI, even if modified, and/or the Juventus trademarks in suit, as well as the use of such trademarks in any form and manner
  • and ordering “the defendant to withdraw from the market and remove from every website and/or from every page of a website directly and/or indirectly controlled by the same on which such products are offered for sale and/or advertised, the NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and the digital contents associated therewith”.

The PI order has now become final, as it was not appealed.

Key legal takeaways

The judgement by the Court of Rome is notable in a number of respects.

First, it acknowledges that the Juventus trademarks are well known, concluding that it is not necessary to consider whether they are registered in relation to “digital objects” or even more specifically to “digital objects certified by NFT”. In its reasoning the Court however underlines that the Juventus trademarks are in any event registered in Class 9 of the Nice Classification in relation to “digital downloadable publications”, thus seemingly agreeing with the current mainstream approach that registration in Class 9 would be required for non well-known trademarks to obtain protection against infringing NFTs.

The Court then reasons that the fact that the Juventus former player had granted the creator of the NFTs the right to use his image did not exclude the need to seek authorization for the use of the trademarks that are displayed in that image, since the goods produced (the NFTs) are intended for sale on the market.

Such consideration leads to the arguably most important takeaway set by the judgement, namely that NFTs have legal autonomy as compared to the images or data associated thereto. The Court thus seems to embrace the theory of the content/certificate separation. As a practical consequence, the Court specifies that the injunction issued concerns both the digital content including the player’s image bearing the Juventus trademarks, and the NFTs themselves.

Lastly, also worth noting is that the defendant is enjoined from producing – directly or indirectly – any further NFT or digital content infringing the rights of Juventus, and at the same time is ordered to take action to withdraw the infringing NFTs and associated digital contents from the market, i.e. from their website but also from any other online location under their direct or indirect control.

The enforcement dilemma

While the judgement by the Court of Rome offers a few key takeaways from a legal standpoint, it still does leave some questions open as to how such innovative orders may be effectively enforced by IP rights owners (eg. in terms of the role of platforms hosting the infringing NFTs and related content, enforcement on the secondary market, assessment of damages, etc.).

No doubt however that with the now established popularity of NFTs, the chances of related litigation and therefore of courts to be called on resolving these outstanding issues will increase.

An English translation of the judgement is available here.

La Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea ha di recente esaminato la questione della tutela autoristica del sapore di un alimento.

Fatti del procedimento

La società attrice, produttrice di formaggio spalmabile con panna ed erbe aromatiche, ricorreva al Tribunale di Gelderland (Paesi Bassi), prima, e alla Corte d’Appello d’Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Paesi Bassi), poi, per vedere accertata la pretesa violazione del diritto d’autore relativo alla crema spalmabile dalla stessa prodotta.

In particolare, secondo la società produttrice, che aveva già ottenuto nel 2012 la tutela brevettuale sul processo di produzione del formaggio spalmabile, la tutela autoristica sul sapore di un alimento si riferisce alla percezione complessiva “sugli organi del gusto prodotta dal consumo di un alimento, compresa la sensazione tattile percepita nella bocca”.

In questo contesto, all’esito del ricorso promosso dall’attrice, la Corte d’Appello ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento instaurato dalla suddetta società e di sottoporre la questione alla Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea, affinché quest’ultima potesse fornire un principio unitario tra le Corti europee.

I principi in materia di tutela del diritto d’autore

Con riferimento alla nozione di ‘opera d’autore’, la Corte di Giustizia ha precisato che un oggetto può qualificarsi come tale ai sensi della Direttiva 2001/29 a condizione che i) sia una creazione intellettuale, originale e identificabile con precisione e obiettività e che ii) tale qualificazione sia riservata agli elementi che sono espressione di siffatta creazione intellettuale.

Elementi qualificanti l’‘opera d’autore’ sono, dunque, la creatività – a sua volta determinata dall’originalità e dalla novità dell’opera – e l’esteriorizzazione dell’idea creativa attraverso una qualunque forma in grado di comunicare e divulgare l’opera a terzi. In altri termini, la tutela autoristica non ha ad oggetto l’idea creativa in sé, ma l’idea espressa in una forma che sia facilmente ed oggettivamente riconoscibile.

A tal proposito, la Corte chiarisce, richiamando anche la Convenzione di Berna ed il Trattato dell’OMPI sul diritto d’autore, che oggetto di protezione sono “le espressioni e non le idee, i procedimenti, i metodi di funzionamento o i concetti matematici in quanto tali”. Di conseguenza, il concetto di ‘opera d’autore’ “implica necessariamente un’espressione dell’oggetto della tutela che lo renda identificabile con sufficiente precisione e obiettività, quand’anche tale espressione non fosse necessariamente permanente”.

Nel processo di identificazione dell’oggetto tutelato, dunque, è necessario evitare qualsiasi elemento di soggettività che altrimenti finirebbe per pregiudicare la certezza del diritto stesso. Soltanto in questo modo, secondo la Corte, è possibile assicurare che gli elementi dell’oggetto tutelato siano identificabili in maniera precisa ed oggettiva.

Pertanto, in presenza di tali requisiti, gli Stati membri possono riconoscere all’autore una tutela autoristica dell’opera e, per l’effetto, attribuire allo stesso autore una serie di diritti esclusivi consistenti nel diritto di riproduzione, di comunicazione e di distribuzione dell’opera ai sensi degli artt. 2-4 della Direttiva 2001/29.

Il caso affrontato dalla Corte e la tutela del sapore di un alimento

Con riferimento al caso di specie, sulla base dei principi sopra menzionati, la Corte di Giustizia ha rilevato che il sapore di un alimento non può essere individuato in maniera precisa ed obiettiva, ritenendo che, a differenza di un’opera letteraria (che per natura è identificata da elementi oggettivi), l’identificazione del sapore avviene essenzialmente attraverso sensazioni ed esperienze gustative soggettive. È indubbio che, nell’ambito di tale processo, elementi rilevanti sono considerati i fattori connessi alla persona che consuma il prodotto in esame (età, preferenze alimentari e abitudini di consumo), nonché l’ambiente o il contesto in cui lo stesso prodotto è assaggiato.

Né, secondo la Corte, il procedimento di identificazione è reso concretamente possibile attraverso l’uso di mezzi tecnici disponibili allo stato dal progresso scientifico e tecnologico.

Pertanto, in virtù di quanto appena detto, la Corte di Giustizia ha ritenuto che il sapore di un alimento non può essere qualificato come ‘opera d’autore’ ai sensi della Direttiva 2001/29, giungendo così a concludere che una normativa nazionale (nella specie la legge sul diritto d’autore dei Paesi Bassi) non può essere interpretata “in modo da conferire una tutela ai sensi del diritto d’autore al sapore di un alimento”.

Lo scorso 5 luglio 2022 la Commissione Ricorsi dell’Ufficio Brevetti Europeo (“EPO”) ha pubblicato le motivazioni scritte della decisione resa nel celebre caso DABUS (J 8/20). Tale decisione conferma in toto la posizione espressa nel 2020 dalla Sezione ricevente dell’EPO e ribadisce che solo un essere umano può essere designato come inventore nel quadro del sistema retto dalla Convenzione di Monaco (“EPC”). 

I fatti all’origine della vicenda: il caso DABUS

Il 17 ottobre e il 7 novembre 2018, mentre Christie’s batteva all’asta la prima opera d’arte generata da un’Intelligenza Artificiale (“AI”) ad essere venduta sul mercato d’arte mondiale, il Dr. Stephen Thaler, inventore di DABUS e pioniere nel campo dell’AI, depositava presso l’Ufficio Brevetti del Regno Unito (“UKIPO”) due domande di brevetto europeo, poi trasmesse all’EPO, in cui, per la prima volta nella storia, veniva designato come inventore un sistema AI.

Dopo aver ascoltato gli argomenti del richiedente in un’udienza non pubblica, tenutasi nel novembre 2019, l’EPO aveva rigettato entrambe le domande di brevetto, dal momento che, ai sensi della normativa vigente, la paternità dell’invenzione non può che essere attribuita ad una persona fisica, essendo le cose prive di capacità giuridica (cfr. EPO – Divisione d’Esame, 27.01.2020, appl. n. 18 275 163.6, par. 19 – 29).

La decisione della Commissione Ricorsi

Già al termine delle discussioni orali del 21 dicembre 2021, la Commissione Ricorsi aveva annunciato la sua decisione di rigettare l’appello proposto dal Dr. Thaler. Le ragioni alla base di tale diniego si fondano sulla carenza dei requisiti formali che nel sistema europeo regolano la designazione dell’inventore (in particolare gli artt. 80 e 61 EPC), nonché sulla mancanza di una qualsiasi forma di personalità giuridica in capo alle AI.

Anche la richiesta ausiliaria, con cui il Dr. Thaler rivendicava il diritto al brevetto europeo in qualità di proprietario e inventore di DABUS ex artt. 81 e 60 EPC, è stata ritenuta inammissibile dall’EPO.

L’art. 81 EPC, secondo periodo, prevede che se il richiedente non coincide con l’inventore, la designazione deve contenere una dichiarazione che indichi l’origine del diritto al brevetto europeo, cioè il titolo da cui tale diritto deriva. A sua volta, l’articolo 60 paragrafo 1 EPC indica quali soggetti legittimati il solo inventore o un suo avente causa e fa dunque riferimento a situazioni di acquisti a titolo derivativo, difficilmente applicabili alle invenzioni generate dall’AI.

Secondo l’EPO, infatti, i sistemi AI, privi di personalità giuridica, non potrebbero trasferire alcun diritto ad un avente causa. La qualità di proprietario o inventore di un’AI non costituirebbe dunque un titolo valido ai sensi degli artt. 81 secondo periodo e 60 paragrafo 1 EPC.

Ciò vale anche, secondo la Commissione Ricorsi, nel caso in cui le leggi nazionali (come accade nel diritto italiano, cfr. art. 64 del Codice della Proprietà Industriale “CPI”) prevedano “altre forme di acquisto a titolo originario o di derivazione del diritto al brevetto (come il possesso) e tali forme vadano oltre l’ambito di applicazione dell’articolo 60, paragrafo 1, EPC”. In casi simili “tali norme si applicherebbero alle domande nazionali, ma non ai brevetti europei, il cui diritto è attribuito ai soggetti elencati nell’articolo 60, paragrafo 1, EPC e a nessun altro” (cfr. EPO – Commissione Ricorsi, 21.12.2021, appl. n. 18 275 163.6, par. 4.2.2).

La decisione della Commissione Ricorsi si pone nel solco di altri rifiuti, basati sulle medesime considerazioni formali, pervenuti dagli Uffici brevettuali di Stati Uniti, Inghilterra e Germania, cui si contrappongono alcune contrarie e dirompenti pronunce, rese sempre nel contesto del caso DABUS.

The Artificial Inventor Project e i primi riconoscimenti della tesi del “robot-inventore”

La vicenda di DABUS si colloca all’interno di un progetto più ampio, “The Artificial Inventor Project” (“AIP”), portato avanti da un gruppo di esperti di proprietà industriale (tra cui il Dr. Thaler) e diretto dal Prof. Ryan Abbott con l’obiettivo di promuovere il riconoscimento di diritti di proprietà intellettuale per le invenzioni generate dall’AI. A tali fini, il team ha depositato in tutto il mondo diverse domande di brevetto, designando DABUS come inventore, dal momento che, a dire dello stesso Dr. Thaler, i trovati oggetto di domanda sarebbero stati sviluppati autonomamente dalla macchina.

Attualmente, secondo i promotori dell’AIP, il contributo umano è ineliminabile in ogni invenzione in cui è coinvolta un’AI: nella fase iniziale, di selezione e descrizione degli obiettivi brevettuali (che la macchina non è in grado di porsi); e nella fase finale di valutazione e selezione dei frutti inventivi raggiunti dalla o con la macchina.

Tuttavia, per il diritto brevettuale, il puntcum dolens riguarda il momento intermedio tra queste due fasi (preparatoria e di assestamento) e, cioè, la fase propriamente inventiva. Ebbene, a differenza di quanto accade nella larga maggioranza delle invenzioni artificiali, cd. “AI-assisted” (in cui la collaborazione uomo-macchina si estende anche a tale stadio), nelle opere che Thaler chiama “AI-generated” l’attività propriamente inventiva è svolta dalla macchina, in autonomia, secondo processi non sempre intelligibili all’uomo.

Il primo riconoscimento ottenuto nell’ambito dell’AIP risale al luglio del 2021, anno in cui la Commissione per le Imprese e la Proprietà Intellettuale Sudafricana (“CIPC”) ha concesso il brevetto su un’invenzione AI-generated, in cui, per la prima volta nella storia, un sistema AI (DABUS) è stato indicato come inventore e il suo proprietario (il Dott. Thaler) come titolare della privativa, in controtendenza rispetto all’orientamento dell’EPO.

A distanza di soli due giorni, un’innovativa sentenza della Corte Federale Australiana ha espressamente statuito che un sistema AI può essere designato come inventore, sebbene non come titolare del brevetto, poiché ciò è coerente con l’attuale realtà tecnologica, con la legge nazionale e con la promozione dell’innovazione.

Tale decisione, sempre pronunciata nel contesto del caso DABUS, accoglie le tesi di Thaler sulla necessaria distinzione “tra la questione sulla titolarità e sul controllo di un’invenzione brevettabile, e cioè su chi può essere un titolare di brevetto, da un lato, e la questione su chi può esserne l’inventore, dall’altro”. Solo una persona umana o un’altra persona giuridica può essere titolare di un brevetto (per ovvie ragioni sistematiche ed economiche) “ma è un errore dedurre da questo che l’inventore può essere solo un essere umano” (cfr. Federal Court of Australia, 30.07.2021, FCA 879, par. 226).

Se, dunque, tale posizione più ampia e flessibile venisse seguita da altre Corti e Uffici brevettuali, il sistema potrebbe presto aprirsi ai “robot inventori”.

Tuttavia, nell’attuale contesto normativo europeo, la designazione di un robot-inventore è, come visto, considerata formalmente invalida e comporta, in sostanza, il rigetto della domanda di brevetto. Finché l’EPO manterrà l’approccio mostrato nel caso DABUS, la soluzione per cui Inventorship e Ownership debbano essere entrambe attribuite ad un essere umano sarà l’unica percorribile nei Paesi aderenti alla Convenzione di Monaco.

Nel caso in cui, al contrario, l’Ufficio decidesse di abbandonare tale prospettiva, l’indicazione del sistema AI come inventore sarebbe percorribile, già allo stato attuale, senza con ciò inficiare la validità del brevetto e senza dover fornire la probatio diabolica circa l’effettiva natura inventiva del contributo fornito dall’AI.

La definitiva svolta nella dibattuta questione delle AI inventive/creative avverrà però solo nel momento in cui le Istituzioni europee riconosceranno una qualche sorta di personalità giuridica in capo alle macchine, la cui assenza è – come rilevato dall’EPO – il principale ostacolo formale affermazione dell’AI-inventorship. Questa, come noto, è la direzione recentemente intrapresa dal Parlamento europeo, quando – nella Risoluzione del 16 febbraio 2017 recante raccomandazioni alla Commissione concernenti norme di diritto civile sulla robotica – ha proposto l’istituzione di uno “status giuridico specifico per i robot” (cd. “personalità elettronica”).

As we have already discussed here, the Italian Competition and Market Authority (“AGCM” or “Authority”) has shown a significant interest in cases of abuses of economic dependence in recent years. Another recent example is the investigation launched in December 2021 against Original Marines (“OM”) regarding the franchise terms applied by the latter to its franchisees, alleged to be an abuse of economic dependence under Article 9 of Italian Law no. 192/1998. The investigation has recently been closed by the Authority with a decision finding that all commitments proposed by OM were acceptable.

In line with prior cases, the proceedings against OM originated from the complaints filed by former franchisees of OM, complaining that the franchisor allegedly abused their position of economic dependence by imposing a set of contractual conditions, through which OM centralized and reserved for itself all business decisions concerning the management of the store, transferring its business risks on the franchisees and affecting their possibility to effectively operate on the market.

By way of example, according to the franchisees’ allegations, the allegedly abusive conducts by OM included the provision of clauses assigning special prerogatives to OM regarding the composition of orders, including through computer-type control at the store and automatic restocking mechanisms, and imposing promotions and resale prices while preventing the franchisees from independently carrying out sales promotion and marketing campaigns.

After the start of the investigation, OM submitted its commitments, which were published by the Authority on its website and underwent a market test. After the conclusion of the market test, OM made changes to its commitments, which resulted in a new version of the franchise contracts providing for:

  • an amendment of the clauses related to quantities to be purchased by removing all references to minimum quantities and products to be mandatorily purchased;
  • the introduction of a clause that explicitly defined restocking to be optional, without minimum purchase obligations, with the possibility of mutually agreeing automatic restocking options;
  • an amendment of the clause related to resale prices, removing all reference to official price lists;
  • an amendment of the clause related to sales promotions and marketing campaigns, removing any reference to the prohibition of competition between retailers and to authorizations required for carrying out marketing campaigns.

The Authority found that the commitments proposed by OM ensure the decision-making autonomy and freedom of choice of franchisees, thus safeguarding the free determination of franchisees regarding purchase orders and restocking, as well as regarding the determination of sales prices and the launching of promotional campaigns, removing the competitive concerns identified in the order which opened the investigation. Consequently, the Authority closed the proceedings without a finding of infringement. The Italian original of the decision can be found here.