INTRANET
Copyright 2020 - Quorum Studio Legale e Tributario Associato - Credits

The Court of Milan on a case of negative findings on infringement

Court of Milan, ord. 23/09/2020, Judge Anna Bellesi

date: 09.10.2020
Area: Intellectual Property

Recently, the Court of Milan issued an order on the negative assessment of infringement in the wine sector.

The case concerned the appeal filed by an Italian agricultural company to obtain a decision, as a precautionary measure, stating that the adoption of the trademark filed by the applicant with the UIBM did not constitute an infringement of the figurative marks owned by the defendant, a Californian wine farm, which had filed an opposition to the above appeal.

In its decision, the Court first assessed the existence of the fumus boni iuris requirement, comparing the two marks to assess their potential confusion. Based on an analysis conducted both visually and phonetically, the Court concluded that since the marks in question, had a different impact on the public and were undoubtedly perceived differently, they could not be confused. On the other hand, with reference to the assumption of the periculum in mora, the Court accepted the arguments of the appellant company, which claimed in its favour that there was a state of objective uncertainty in the use of the registered trademark, due to the claims and objections that the respondent has made or could make with reference to the trademark itself. The judge considered this situation of uncertainty sufficient to justify the precautionary measure, as it “prevents the plaintiff from adequately planning its production activities, exposing it to the risk of seeing its investments frustrated”. Given the above, the Court therefore upheld the appeal by pronouncing a negative assessment of the infringement.

The Court of Milan on a case of negative findings on infringement

Court of Milan, ord. 23/09/2020, Judge Anna Bellesi

date: 09.10.2020
Area: Intellectual Property

Recently, the Court of Milan issued an order on the negative assessment of infringement in the wine sector.

The case concerned the appeal filed by an Italian agricultural company to obtain a decision, as a precautionary measure, stating that the adoption of the trademark filed by the applicant with the UIBM did not constitute an infringement of the figurative marks owned by the defendant, a Californian wine farm, which had filed an opposition to the above appeal.

In its decision, the Court first assessed the existence of the fumus boni iuris requirement, comparing the two marks to assess their potential confusion. Based on an analysis conducted both visually and phonetically, the Court concluded that since the marks in question, had a different impact on the public and were undoubtedly perceived differently, they could not be confused. On the other hand, with reference to the assumption of the periculum in mora, the Court accepted the arguments of the appellant company, which claimed in its favour that there was a state of objective uncertainty in the use of the registered trademark, due to the claims and objections that the respondent has made or could make with reference to the trademark itself. The judge considered this situation of uncertainty sufficient to justify the precautionary measure, as it “prevents the plaintiff from adequately planning its production activities, exposing it to the risk of seeing its investments frustrated”. Given the above, the Court therefore upheld the appeal by pronouncing a negative assessment of the infringement.