BUSINESS BRIEF: ITALY
the likelihood of success on the merits; and (ii) the likelihood of irreparable harm. If the trademark owner delays the application for injunctive relief for too long aſter having had knowledge of the infringement, this inactivity might be regarded by the court as proof that he is not in urgent need of preliminary relief (ie, lack of the irreparable harm).
Tere are no statutory or case law rules by which the ‘delay threshold’ can be precisely assessed, but the holder's reaction would be sound only if started within a couple of months from knowledge of the infringement.
Copyright
What are the key challenges to copyright holders in your jurisdiction? New media and the internet represent key challenges for copyright holders.
What is the best way to deal with infringement, and what are the costs associated with it?
In case of copyright infringement, the most effective way to react is to apply to the court for interim relief (see above on patents). Please also note the new procedure described below.
Have there been any changes to the copyright law(s) in the last 12 months?
In December 2013 the Italian communications authority Agcom issued a regulation on protection of copyright on electronic communication networks. Tis regulation came into force on March 31, 2014. Te regulation provides for a procedure for the protection of copyright/neighbouring rights in a number of categories of works, ie, audiovisual, music, photographic, video games, e-books, soſtware works (defined as ‘digital works’) made available to the public via communication networks (ie, through uploading on websites and broadcasting over TV platforms).
Any entity that believes a digital work made available on a website infringes its rights may file an
www.worldipreview.com
application with the authority requesting its removal within 12 days from the filing of the application. If the application is not manifestly without grounds, the authority notifies the relevant hosting provider, the mere conduit provider and the entity that uploaded the infringing content. If the content is not removed and the authority is satisfied that a copyright/ neighbouring right infringement is carried out on a website, the authority may adopt suitable measures (including an order to the access provider to prevent access to the website from Italian territory).
Counterfeiting
How big a problem is counterfeiting in your jurisdiction? Between 2008 and 2011, the relevant
Italian
authorities (Agenzia delle Dogane and Guardia di Finanza) made more than 71,000 seizures, confiscating over 229 million counterfeit goods. Te value of all counterfeit products seized during the above mentioned period has been estimated at approximately €1.8 billion.
What industries are particularly at threat? Fashion and food, given the long-standing reputation of Italian firms in these sectors.
What are the best strategies for dealing with the problem?
Different actors are involved, including IP rights holders, judicial and political bodies. However, it is essential for rights holders to adopt suitable measures (including registration, market monitoring and enforcement) to protect their intellectual and marketing assets.
Matteo Orsingher is a partner at Orsingher Ortu–Avvocati Associati. He can be contacted at:
matteo.orsingher@orsingher.com
Fabrizio Sanna is a partner at Orsingher Ortu–Avvocati Associati. He can be contacted at:
fabrizio.sanna@
orsingher.com
Matteo Orsingher graduated cum laude from Bologna University in 1987. Aſter 20 years of professional experience in Italian and international law firms in 2007 he founded Orsingher Ortu– Avvocati Associati. He assists Italian and foreign clients on many contentious and non-contentious IP/IT, unfair competition, advertising, Internet and e-commerce issues.
Fabrizio Sanna graduated cum laude from Pavia University, he is also Oxford University MJur (2002) and MPhil (2004); PhD in IP Pavia University (2004). In 2007 he founded Orsingher Ortu–Avvocati Associati. He practises in all fields of IP, advertising and privacy laws. He is a lecturer of IP law at Pavia University.
World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2014 121
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172