On January 30, opening date of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Village, the so-called “Games Period” began. Throughout such term (which will end on February 24, two days after the Closing Ceremony), the Key Principles of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are applicable to govern the use of participants’ images in advertising[1].

Just on that date, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) issued a press release whereby, upon a complaint filed by the Special Antitrust Unit of the Italian Financial Police (Guardia di Finanza), it had launched an investigation against a company for ambush marketing in relation to the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games[2]. That company – who is not among the official sponsors – seems to have published online advertisements, including on major social networks, frequently showing – also in combination with its own distinctive signs – the Olympic symbol (the five coloured rings) and/or the hashtags #MilanoCortina and #MilanoCortina2026. As part of this conduct, the company also engaged influencers and advertised a line of clothing named Cortina a colori (namely Cortina in colour).

The AGCM investigation, opened in conjunction with interim measure proceedings for the provisional removal of the advertisements at stake, is grounded on the apparently unlawful direct association between the company’s brand and the Games, in breach of Article 10 of Decree-Law no. 16/2020 (Decree-Law)[3].

Let us take a step backwards to recall the ad hoc national legislation on ambush marketing, which was issued in consideration of the urgent need to strengthen the regulatory framework to counter free riding and protect well-known marks in the field of sports, as well as the specific commitments made to the IOC for Milano Cortina 2026.

Article 10 expressly prohibits free-riding activities, described as “parasitic, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading advertising and marketing activities, carried out in relation to the organization of sporting events or trade fairs of national or international importance, that are not authorized by the organizers and are intended to obtain an economic or competitive advantage” (para.1). This definition illustrates the concept of ambush marketing. A specific list of banned free-riding activities is then supplied (para.2):

1. the creation of an even indirect link between a trademark or other distinctive sign and the event, likely to mislead the public as to the identity of the official sponsors;
2. the false representation or declaration in one’s advertising of being an official sponsor of the event;
3. the promotion of one’s trademark or other distinctive sign through any action, not authorized by the organizer, that is likely to attract the attention of the public, carried out during the event and likely to give the public the false impression that the person performing the action is a sponsor;
4. the sale and advertising of products or services unlawfully branded, even only in part, with the logo of the event or with other distinctive signs likely to mislead the public about the logo itself and create the erroneous perception of a connection with the event, its organizer or sponsors.

Arguably, the conduct that is being investigated by AGCM would fall under letter/s a) and/or d) in particular.

Moreover, the conduct would be covered by the timeframe of application of the prohibitions under Article 10, which runs from the date of registration of the official logos or trademarks of the event until the 180^th day following the official end date of the latter (Art.11). Hence, the investigated company risks an administrative fine ranging between Euro 100,000 and Euro 2.5 million (Art.12).

The application of the Decree-Law to this case would not be a première. By decision no. 30099 of 29 March 2022[4], the AGCM found that a well-known company active in the field of e-commerce had put in place a free-riding advertising activity surrounding the international soccer event UEFA Euro 2020. More particularly, the Financial Police had reported the presence, in a square in Rome where UEFA had set up the official Football Village, of a large-scale billboard featuring the claim “Who will be the winner?”, the name of the company, images of the 24 flags of the countries participating in the tournament and a white football t-shirt bearing the company’s logo.

The fine was inflicted in the minimum amount set out by the Decree-Law, in consideration, among others, of the limited geographical diffusion of the message (one billboard affixed in a single square) and the circumstance that it was the first enforcement of the new provisions after their entry into force. Neither of these circumstances could be relied on in the pending case; in particular, one may observe that running ads on the Internet entails an indefinite, potentially very large, territorial reach.

It is moreover noted that, as likewise specified in the Decree-Law (Art.13), the new rules do not preclude the enforcement of other legal provisions applying to the same free-riding conducts. As IP practitioners know, ambush marketing can be addressed within the framework of several pre-existing sets of provisions, especially the following.

• Trademark law, with respect to the distinctive signs of the event (under the Industrial Property Code for national trademarks; under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 for EU trademarks). This remedy may prove of limited effectiveness, considering the weak distinctive character of the trademarks concerned (inasmuch as they identify/describe the hosting town or the type of sporting event concerned), and furthermore considering that the ambusher does not necessarily reproduce or imitate the organizer’s logo/name.
• Unfair competition, under art. 2598 of the Italian Civil Code, chiefly for misappropriation of merits and/or non-compliance with principles of professional fairness, provided that the ambusher qualifies as a “competitor”.
• Fairness in advertising, in particular under the Code of the Advertising Self-Regulation Institute (IAP Code), which is binding on those having accepted it directly or indirectly; and/or under Legislative Decree no. 145 of 2 August 2007 (on misleading advertising), as for relations between entrepreneurs/professionals; and/or under the provisions of the Italian Consumer Code on unfair commercial practices to the detriment of consumers.

In real-life cases – unless in presence of “hardcore” ambush marketing, characterized by a direct association with the event through an explicit use of its official signs – drawing a clear line between legitimate and unlawful marketing initiatives may not be obvious. The borderline becomes blurred when it comes to marketing strategies where the connection established between the non-sponsor brand and the event is more indirect. This happens, for instance, in the case of so-called coat-tail ambushing, which leverages the sponsorship of a prominent participant in the event (individual athlete or whole team, coach, trainer or official), in order for the brand to gain visibility bypassing the payment of the event sponsorship fees.

According to the Decree-Law, conduct carried out performing sponsorship agreements with individual athletes, teams, artists or participants authorized to the event does not constitute free-riding advertising (Art.10, para.3).  However, the engagement of participants in commercial activities around the event, especially the use of their personal image in advertising by non-sponsors/non-partners of the event, remains a delicate issue.

As for the upcoming 2026 Winter Olympics, the abovementioned IOC Key Principles provide that “All Participants are permitted to promote their sponsors, and all sponsors are permitted to use Participant Images (in each case including Olympic Partners and Non-Olympic Partners), during the Games Period …”, but “… in accordance with the following Principles”[5], the implementation of which is a shared competence between the National Olympic Committee (for Italy, the CONI) and the Organizing Committee (for the upcoming Winter Olympics, Fondazione Milano Cortina).

Looking at the Principles, one reads that during the Game Period Non-Olympic Partners are allowed to use participants’ images for advertising subject to specific conditions. In addition to (i) obtaining the necessary consents from the participants concerned and (ii) respecting certain policies on activities that are incompatible with the Olympic values (for example, sponsorships connected with tobacco or prohibited drugs are banned), the advertising needs to (iii) avoid the use of any “Olympic Properties” and (iv) constitute “Generic Advertising”[6].

The list of Olympic Properties is extensive and detailed, including in particular: the Olympic symbol; the Olympic-related registered trademarks; the emblem, mascots, pictograms and graphics of the Games; the name of the host city along with the year of the Games (i.e. Milano Cortina 2026); the very words Olympic, Olympics, Olympic Games, etc.; names and emblems of Olympic teams (such as Italia team); the Olympic motto; films, musical/artistic works and designs created by the organizers; as well as “any other symbols, designs, works, words or expressions that are translations of, or which could be confused with, those listed above”.

In order for a marketing campaign to qualify as Generic Advertising, three cumulative requirements need to be met: that (i) the only connection between the Olympic Movement and the relevant marketing activity is the use of the image of a participant in advertising; (ii) the advertising has been on the market for at least 90 days prior to the Games Period, and (iii) the advertising has been run consistently and not materially escalated during the Games Period. Criteria (ii) and (iii) apply with a degree of flexibility, with exemptions to be considered by IOC on a case-by-case basis. In any event, within a specific deadline, Non-Olympic Partners are expected to have notified the IOC (or the relevant National Olympic Committee, in case of single-territory campaigns) of their Generic Advertising, so that the organizers are made aware of the planned activity, can verify its compliance and supply their feedback (for social media advertising, it is sufficient to describe the planned nature and content thereof, without the need to provide notice of each individual post).

Interestingly, still based on the IOC Key Principles, congratulatory advertising (either supporting an athlete/team or praising them for achievements at the Games), is not regarded as amounting to Generic Advertising, because of its “intrinsic connection with Milano Cortina 2026”. Non-Olympic Partners may undertake congratulatory advertising before and after the Games Period, but without using any Olympic Properties; brands of sporting goods participating in a specific project involving the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI Project) may do it (in the manner set out within the WFSGI Project itself) at any time, including during the Games Period.

On the whole, this set of limited restrictions is aimed at maintaining the distinctiveness of the official Olympic marketing programmes and supporting the funding of global athlete participation (the IOC runs an international marketing programme based on the principle of solidarity, to ensure that all teams are adequately funded to be able to join the Olympics)[7].

To facilitate the implementation of the Key Principles, the IOC issued an Illustrative Guidance dedicated to Non-Olympic Partners[8], containing a series of practical examples distinguishing between allowed and non-allowed initiatives, with images and brief explanations. The Guidance is relevant for advertising activities that cover more than one country, while those targeting only one territory are subject to the rules of that country’s National Olympic Committee and/or the relevant Organizing Committee.

The CONI has actually published its own Guidelines[9]. Besides, Fondazione Milano Cortina 2026 has issued, among other information on the protection of Intellectual Property in relation to the Games[10], specific Guidelines addressed to shopkeepers[11]. Basically, business owners can create a welcoming atmosphere (for example, using country flags, generic references to sports and neutral messages such as “Let’s celebrate sport!”), but without suggesting an official association with the Games. Rather, the Guidelines require a non-sponsor business to refrain from creating installations, shop windows, corners or other structures reproducing the trademarks of Milano Cortina 2026 or showing an excessive similarity to the graphics of the Games, in a way that suggests an official affiliation or association. For retailers whose stores are located within 500 meters of the competition venues and whose media exposure could be significant, the principle of continuity (so-called business-as-usual rule) applies.

To sum up, the upcoming 2026 Winter Games ought to also supply a sort of fresh legal playground. Within the multi-layer legal framework outlined above it could be instructive to see, on the one hand, whether organizers and sponsors will resort to the remedies available to them, and to which ones, to root out unlawful ambush marketing; and, on the other hand, whether marketing offices and agencies of non-sponsor businesses will succeed in being creative and ride the wave of enthusiasm surrounding the Olympics without slipping into infringement and/or free-riding practices, first and foremost in the digital landscape.  

Download the article

The post WINTER OLYMPICS ARE OFF TO THE RACES, BUT THE SLALOM THROUGH AMBUSH MARKETING HAS ALREADY BEGUN appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

The post CHINA, NEW TRADEMARK LAW AGAINST “TRADEMARK SQUATTING”: OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITALIAN COMPANIES appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

On 10 December, our Senior Associate Giulia Beneduci joined, as a guest-speaker, the international online forum WE MEET ON AIR sharing our project – Real estate qualification and enhancement from public spaces to residential living, organized by Simone Micheli Architectural Hero.

This cross-cutting event gathered high-profile participants from diverse backgrounds, businesses and institutions, architects, builders, real estate entrepreneurs, hoteliers, etc., who could exchange experiences, ideas and projects: an innovative format to learn, weave relationships and explore professional synergies.

In this lively agora, Giulia gave some legal insights into IP rights that may arise on architectural projects/works and objects of industrial design/applied art, with a view to helping their identification, protection and enhancement.

Many thanks to the organizing team for the invitation and efficient set-up, as well as to all speakers for the quality of their inputs.

The post WE MEET ON AIR BY SIMONE MICHELI ARCHITECTURAL HERO – December 10, 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

In 2025, the fight against counterfeiting in Italy continued to make progress, thanks to the “Made in Italy” law (Law No. 206/2023) and the strengthened commitment of independent authorities such as the Antitrust Authority. Border control measures are becoming increasingly effective and are complemented by criminal proceedings and tools such as the swift destruction of seized counterfeit goods.

In yesterday’s edition of ItaliaOggi, a feature by Luca Settembrini included an interview with our own Roberto A. Jacchia, who discussed the tangible effects of the “Made in Italy” law on the protection of industrial property rights and the fight against counterfeiting.
How effective are anti-counterfeiting measures in Italy today?

“In general, counterfeiting phenomena — despite the various initiatives undertaken by IP rights holders and institutions — still persist. Illegal operators are always one step ahead of legal ones, who try to catch up by pushing for changes and updates in regulations, policies, and judicial approaches. We are perhaps seeing a decline in so-called crude fakes, but there is an exponential increase in counterfeiting, infringements, and unfair commercial practices online”, explains Jacchia.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE IN ITALIAN

The post COUNTERFEITING: THE FIGHT AGAINST FAKES IS STARTING TO WORK appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

On 15 September 2025, the Fashion Sustainability and Law Forum took place, organized by the Sustainability, Education and Business Club in partnership with the Department of Law of the Università degli Studi di Bergamo.

Our senior associate Giulia Beneduci participated as a speaker in an interactive session with Matteo de Padova, co-founder of Winetage Design, entitled: “From Waste to Wow: a Dialogue on Arele, an Upcycling Project Embracing Design, Fashion, and Wine Made in Italy”.

Their speech started from the story of Arele: a luxury chaise longue crafted by Winetage’s designers and exhibited at Milan Design Week 2025, made from reclaimed wine barrels in collaboration with Tommasi Family Estates and upholstered with natural fabrics by Luca Faloni.
Among others, it was described how the underlying creative process reinterprets certain features – like colour, curvature and scent – imprinted to staves by wine during the ageing process, in harmony with the appearance of the cloth, in turn evoking the nuances of wine.
Besides tracing how this upcycling project concretely took shape, certain legal challenges were explored, especially contractual issues and IP protection. Last but not least, it was discussed whether and how this project could pave the way for larger-scale cross-cutting regenerative practices.
One of the key takeaways from Arele’s experiment and vision is that progress towards a more sustainable future, also leveraging Italian excellence, is likely to be driven by collaboration and “contamination” between diverse sectors, rather than by working in silos.

We thank all participants and the organizing committee for making the event a valuable opportunity for networking, discussion, and growth.

The post FASHION SUSTAINABILITY AND LAW FORUM 2025 – Bergamo, September 15, 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

Last Friday, 16 May, within the AIJA Half-Year Conference in Milan, our senior associate Giulia Beneduci moderated the session “Fashion in Trouble: ADR or Litigation to the Rescue?“, organized by the Litigation, International Arbitration, Insolvency and IP/TMT Commissions. The topic was discussed with the other panelists: Dimosthenis Stefanopulos, Anna Zabrotskaya and – as keynote speaker from the fashion industry – Sara Citterio (TRUSSARDI).

Starting from a cross-cutting legal overview, following up with a series of real-life cases and finally collecting direct insights from the fashion industry, it was shown that the issues revolving around “fashion in trouble” are manifold, and chiefly revolve around (among others) how to preserve brand value and reputation. The answer to the question whether litigation and/or arbitation should be prioritized as a legal tool to the rescue, also based on polls launched to the audience, appeared anything but black-or-white.

Networking, updating and discussion: a perfect mix that made the conference a unique opportunity, bringing together hundreds of lawyers from various jurisdictions.

Thanks to all participants and the organisers for this inspiring event.

The post AIJA HALF-YEAR MAY CONFERENCE – Milan, 14 – 17 May 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

On April 3rd, Giulia Beneduci and Silvia Bolognani participated as speakers in the online event “The protection of design: boundaries, normative evolutions and implications for the sector“, organized by INDICAM.

The training seminar, aimed at professionals and companies, sought to illustrate the new regulatory scenarios and their implications in the design sector. The debate focused on recent regulatory and case-law developments that present new challenges and opportunities for the sector.

Giulia and Silvia contributed by delving into the topic of the new repair clause, exploring its origins and impact.

Download the event flyer here.

The post THE PROTECTION OF DESIGN: BOUNDARIES, NORMATIVE EVOLUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SECTOR – April 3, 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

The post BUILDING AND PROTECTING A BRAND. INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION – Los Angeles, February 17th, 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

In data 24 ottobre 2024, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea si è pronunciata nella Causa C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland BV e Kwantum België BV contro Vitra Collections AG, sull’interpretazione degli articoli da 2 a 4 della Direttiva 2001/29/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 22 maggio 2001, sull’armonizzazione di taluni aspetti del diritto d’autore e dei diritti connessi nella società dell’informazione^[1], dell’articolo 17, paragrafo 2, e dell’articolo 52, paragrafo 1, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, letti alla luce dell’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, della Convenzione per la protezione delle opere letterarie ed artistiche, firmata a Berna il 9 settembre 1886 (“Convenzione di Berna”), nonché dell’articolo 351, primo comma, del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell’Unione Europea (TFUE). Tale domanda era stata presentata nell’ambito di una controversia tra, da un lato, la Vitra Collections AG (“Vitra”), una società di diritto svizzero, e, dall’altro, la Kwantum Nederland BV e la Kwantum België BV (congiuntamente “Kwantum”), che gestiscono, nei Paesi Bassi e in Belgio, una catena di negozi di articoli per arredo interno, tra cui mobilio, per il motivo che queste ultime hanno commercializzato una sedia che, a parere della Vitra, violerebbe taluni diritti d’autore di cui essa è titolare.

Questi i fatti.

Nel corso del 2014, la Vitra aveva constatato che la Kwantum commercializzava una sedia, denominata “sedia Paris”, in violazione dei diritti d’autore detenuti su una sedia da essa fabbricata, denominata Dining Sidechair Wood (“sedia DSW”) e concepita dai coniugi Charles e Ray Eames, cittadini degli Stati Uniti d’America, nell’ambito di un concorso di progettazione di mobili organizzato a New York nel 1948. Di conseguenza, la Vitra aveva adito il rechtbank Den Haag (Tribunale dell’Aia), che aveva statuito che la Kwantum non ne violava i diritti d’autore nei Paesi Bassi e in Belgio e non agiva in modo illecito commercializzando la sedia Paris. Poiché tale sentenza era stata annullata dal Gerechtshof Den Haag (Corte d’appello dell’Aia), la Kwantum si era rivolta allo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Corte suprema dei Paesi Bassi; il “giudice del rinvio”) che, alla luce della necessità di interpretare la normativa europea rilevante in materia, aveva deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte di Giustizia cinque questioni pregiudiziali.

Con la prima questione, il giudice del rinvio chiedeva se il caso concreto rientri nell’ambito di applicazione materiale del diritto dell’Unione.

La Corte ha preliminarmente ricordato che l’ambito di applicazione della Direttiva 2001/29 è definito non già secondo il criterio del paese d’origine dell’opera o della cittadinanza del suo autore, e bensì con riferimento al mercato interno, che equivale all’ambito di applicazione territoriale dei Trattati^[2]. Le disposizioni di tale direttiva, che armonizza taluni aspetti del diritto d’autore e dei diritti connessi nella società dell’informazione, inoltre, si applicano a tutte le opere e agli altri materiali protetti in essa contemplati che, alla data prevista per il suo recepimento, rispondono ai criteri per la tutela ivi stabiliti. Più particolarmente, un oggetto delle arti applicate, quale la sedia DSW, può essere qualificato come “opera” ai sensi della Direttiva 2001/29 qualora sia originale, ossia costituisca una creazione intellettuale propria del suo autore^[3]. Di conseguenza, quando un oggetto delle arti applicate presenta tali caratteristiche, e costituisce pertanto un’opera, esso deve beneficiare, in tale qualità, di una tutela ai sensi del diritto d’autore conformemente alla Direttiva 2001/29^[4].

Con le questioni dalla seconda alla quarta, invece, il giudice del rinvio chiedeva se l’articolo 2, lettera a)^[5], e l’articolo 4, paragrafo 1^[6], della Direttiva 2001/29, letti in combinato disposto con l’articolo 17, paragrafo 2^[7], e l’articolo 52, paragrafo 1^[8], della Carta debbano essere interpretati nel senso che essi ostano a che gli Stati Membri applichino il criterio di reciprocità sostanziale previsto all’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, seconda frase^[9], della Convenzione di Berna nei riguardi di un’opera delle arti applicate il cui paese d’origine sia uno Stato terzo e il cui autore sia un cittadino di uno Stato terzo.

La Corte ha preliminarmente ricordato che, ai sensi della Direttiva 2001/29, gli Stati Membri riconoscono agli autori i diritti esclusivi di autorizzare o vietare, da un lato, la riproduzione diretta o indiretta, temporanea o permanente, in qualunque modo o forma, in tutto o in parte, per quanto riguarda le loro opere e, dall’altro, qualsiasi forma di distribuzione al pubblico dell’originale delle loro opere o di loro copie, attraverso la vendita o in altro modo. A tale riguardo, quando può essere qualificato come opera ai sensi della Direttiva 2001/29, un oggetto deve, in tale qualità, beneficiare di una tutela ai sensi del diritto d’autore conformemente a tale direttiva, in quanto quest’ultima non prevede alcuna condizione riguardante il paese d’origine dell’opera in questione o la cittadinanza del suo autore. Nel definire l’ambito di applicazione della Direttiva 2001/29 mediante un criterio territoriale, inoltre, il legislatore europeo ha preso in considerazione tutte le opere per le quali viene richiesta la tutela nel territorio dell’Unione, indipendentemente dal loro paese d’origine o dalla cittadinanza del loro autore. Secondo la Corte, infine, sarebbe contrario agli obblighi internazionali dell’Unione attuati dalla Direttiva 2001/29 nel settore della proprietà intellettuale il fatto che quest’ultima armonizzi il diritto d’autore per quanto concerne le opere il cui paese d’origine sia uno Stato Membro o il cui autore ne sia cittadino pur lasciando al diritto interno degli Stati Membri la determinazione del regime giuridico applicabile alle opere il cui paese d’origine sia uno Stato terzo o il cui autore ne sia cittadino. Di conseguenza, l’articolo 2, lettera a), e l’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, della Direttiva 2001/29 si applicano alle opere delle arti applicate originarie di paesi terzi o i cui autori siano cittadini di tali paesi.

Tutto ciò premesso, l’applicazione, da parte di uno Stato Membro, del criterio di reciprocità sostanziale previsto all’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, seconda frase, della Convenzione di Berna nei riguardi di un’opera delle arti applicate il cui paese d’origine sia uno Stato terzo o il cui autore ne sia cittadino non solo sarebbe contraria al tenore letterale dell’articolo 2, lettera a), e dell’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, della Direttiva 2001/29, e bensì rimetterebbe parimenti in discussione l’obiettivo di quest’ultima, che consiste nell’armonizzazione del diritto d’autore nel mercato interno. In applicazione di tale criterio, infatti, le opere delle arti applicate originarie di paesi terzi potrebbero essere trattate in maniera diversa in diversi Stati Membri, in forza di disposizioni di diritto convenzionale applicabili in via bilaterale tra uno Stato Membro e un paese terzo. Nel caso concreto, pertanto, l’applicazione, da parte di uno Stato membro, del criterio di reciprocità sostanziale previsto all’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, seconda frase, della Convenzione di Berna potrebbe costituire una limitazione dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale di cui alla Direttiva 2001/29, in quanto tale applicazione è idonea a privare l’eventuale titolare del godimento e dell’esercizio di questi ultimi in una parte del mercato interno, ossia nel territorio dello Stato Membro che applica tale clausola.

Con la quinta questione, infine, il giudice del rinvio chiedeva se l’articolo 351, primo comma^[10], TFUE debba essere interpretato nel senso che esso consente ad uno Stato Membro di applicare, in deroga alle disposizioni del diritto dell’Unione, il criterio di reciprocità sostanziale contenuto nell’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, seconda frase, della Convenzione di Berna nei riguardi di un’opera il cui paese d’origine siano gli Stati Uniti d’America.

La Corte ha preliminarmente ricordato che allorché una convenzione internazionale che è stata conclusa anteriormente alla sua adesione all’Unione gli consente, come nel caso concreto, di adottare un provvedimento che risulti contrario alle norme europee, senza tuttavia obbligarlo in tal senso, uno Stato Membro deve astenersi dall’adottarlo^[11]. Nell’ipotesi in cui, in ragione di un’evoluzione del diritto dell’Unione, una misura normativa adottata conformemente alla facoltà riconosciuta da una convenzione internazionale anteriore risulti contraria a tale diritto, inoltre, lo Stato Membro in questione non può far valere tale convenzione per esonerarsi dagli obblighi europei sorti in un momento successivo^[12]. Di conseguenza, uno Stato Membro non può avvalersi dell’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, della Convenzione di Berna per esonerarsi dagli obblighi derivanti dalla Direttiva 2001/29.

Tutto ciò premesso, la Corte ha pertanto statuito che:

“Rientra nell’ambito di applicazione materiale del diritto dell’Unione una situazione in cui una società rivendica una tutela in forza del diritto d’autore di un oggetto delle arti applicate commercializzato in uno Stato membro, purché possa essere qualificato come «opera», ai sensi della direttiva 2001/29/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 22 maggio 2001, sull’armonizzazione di taluni aspetti del diritto d’autore e dei diritti connessi nella società dell’informazione.

L’articolo 2, lettera a), e l’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2001/29, letti in combinato disposto con l’articolo 17, paragrafo 2, e l’articolo 52, paragrafo 1, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, devono essere interpretati nel senso che allo stato attuale del diritto dell’Unione, essi ostano a che gli Stati membri applichino, nel diritto nazionale, il criterio di reciprocità sostanziale previsto all’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, seconda frase, della Convenzione per la protezione delle opere letterarie ed artistiche, firmata a Berna il 9 settembre 1886 (atto di Parigi del 24 luglio 1971), nella sua versione risultante dalla modifica del 28 settembre 1979, nei riguardi di un’opera delle arti applicate il cui paese d’origine sia un paese terzo e il cui autore sia un cittadino di un paese terzo. Spetta al solo legislatore dell’Unione, in conformità all’articolo 52, paragrafo 1, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali, prevedere, mediante una legislazione dell’Unione, se si debba limitare la concessione, nell’Unione, dei diritti previsti da tale articolo 2, lettera a), e da tale articolo 4, paragrafo 1.

L’articolo 351, primo comma, TFUE deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso non consente a uno Stato membro di applicare, in deroga alle disposizioni del diritto dell’Unione, il criterio di reciprocità sostanziale contenuto nell’articolo 2, paragrafo 7, seconda frase, della Convenzione per la protezione delle opere letterarie ed artistiche, firmata a Berna il 9 settembre 1886 (atto di Parigi del 24 luglio 1971), nella sua versione risultante dalla modifica del 28 settembre 1979, nei riguardi di un’opera il cui paese d’origine siano gli Stati Uniti d’America”.

Download Article

The post LA CORTE DI GIUSTIZIA SI PRONUNCIA SULLA PROTEZIONE IN FORZA DEL DIRITTO D’AUTORE DI OGGETTI DELLE ARTI APPLICATE IL CUI PAESE D’ORIGINE NON È UNO STATO MEMBRO appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

Articolo di Laura Bussoli pubblicato su Ristorazione Italiana Magazine

Download Article

The post IL MARCHIO NELLA RISTORAZIONE COME PROTEGGERE L’IDENTITÀ DEL PROPRIO LOCALE appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.