All posts by luminous

AN INTERESTING MOCK TRIAL ON THE COEXISTENCE AND CONVALIDATION OF THE TRADE MARKS

13/12/2016

Ms. Simona Lavagnini was a member of the panel that – on the basis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of certain recent decisions of the Italian specialized court divisions – affirmed the possibility of coexistence between two similar marks when there has been evidence of prolonged use, acceptance and absence of confusion in respect of the use of such marks


 

The mock trial was held on 5 December 2016 and organized by the Lawyers Association of Milan. The structure of the trial simulated that of civil proceedings on the merits and focused on the matter of trade marks. Claimant and defendant were represented, respectively, by Ms. Elisabetta Gavuzzi and Ms. Stefania Bergia, whereas the panel was composed of Attorneys Ms. Francesca Morri, Ms. Caterina Paschi and Ms. Simona Lavagnini. The case at hand concerned the issue of coexistence of trade marks, a matter of topical interest following the known European Budweiser decision, which in Italy has been followed by several interesting decisions that have applied the concept of trade mark coexistence (Court of Turin, 22 April 2016, judgment no. 2256/2016, “Roagna”; Court of Milan, 24 February 2016, judgment no. 3320/2016, “Bison – Il Bisonte”). In detail, the facts of the case were that the claimant – the company ZO.OM – alleged it was the licensee of an unregistered mark which it had been using since 1956 (Zoomia). The mark had subsequently been registered as a European trade mark for class 12 (bicycles and similar items) on 9 Janaury 1998. The claimant also alleged that the defendant, the company Zumieb, used and was the owner of a national registered trade mark (the homonym Zumieb), which had been filed for registration on 15 June 2012 and granted on 22 July 2013, for class 12, and which could be confused with the prior mark Zoomia. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendant had created and distributed a type of bicycle that infringed an unregistered design owned by the claimant. On the basis of these circumstances, the claimant asked for a declaration of nullity of the registration of the mark Zumieb; the ascertainment of the infringement of its rights in the mark Zoomia; an injunction to prevent further infringing use; damages; and, finally, the infringement of its bicycle design, with correlated injunction and request for damages. The defendant corporation Zumieb joined the proceedings arguing that the claimant could not bring a claim for it was a mere licensee; moreover, it demanded that the claims should be rejected in so far as the marks could not be confused with one another; the Zumieb mark had coexisted for a period of five years with the Zoomia mark (a phenomenon known as “convalidation” in Italy); finally, the claimant was preempted from bringing a claim due to the prolonged coexistence of the two marks (which had begun in 2001). In the course of the evidentiary phase the issue of legitimacy of the claimant in bringing proceedings was resolved by the participation in the proceedings of the owner of the Zoomia trade mark, and production in evidence of the exclusive license agreement which provided for the right of the licensee to commence legal proceedings. Moreover, from the evidence that was given it emerged that there had indeed been episodes of confusion among the public, seeing as a consumer had taken a bicycle of the defendant to a repair shop owned by the claimant. From the produced documents and texts it emerged that the companies had simultaneously attended the same exhibitions, for several years, and that they had both provided advertisements on several media outlets. Finally, a specifically ordered technical report concluded in favour of the claimant, in particular finding that the bicycle design of the claimant was protected and had been infringed by the bicycle manufactured by the defendant. The proceedings thus reached their conclusive phase, and the panel issued its decision focusing its attention mostly on the issues of coexistence and convalidation. In this regard, the panel observed that the five year period which grounds convalidation, and which is required by art. 28 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property, had not yet ended considering that art. 28 refers to a later registered trade mark and not one merely applied for (see CJEU in the Budweiser case, 22 July 2011). In the present case, registration had only occurred in 2012, so that – for the purposes of convalidation – only four years had passed. The panel, however, after careful scrutiny of the evidence found that the two marks had coexisted on the market for 15 years; and in those 15 years there had not been any episodes of confusion among the public, with the exception of that exemplified in documentary evidence by the claimant, which in any case did not appear to be significant even from an economic standpoint, given the sales volumes documented by the parties and the average price of the product; it also appeared to be highly unlikely that the two companies did not know of the other, for they had both sold their products within the national market (and as such it was improbable that one entrepreneur did not know of his most proximate competitors, especially if they use a very similar mark) and because they had both attended, for several years, the most important exhibitions. On those grounds, the panel found that consumers had become accustomed to the simultaneous presence of both marks on the market and, therefore, regardless of the similarity between the marks, it concluded that consumers were capable of properly identifying products (which bore the same signs) originating from two different producers and so a risk of confusion could be excluded. The 15 year inertia of the owner of the prior mark had, in other words, created a situation of coexistence between the two marks which could not be ignored when finding a solution to the ongoing dispute. Considering the conclusions of the technical report in relation to the design, the panel rejected the request for a declaration of nullity of the mark Zumieb as well as the related claim of infringement; on the other hand, it found the defendant Zumieb responsible for infringement of the unregistered design and enjoined the defendant from carrying out any further infringement of the same, ordering that a sanction of Euros 1.000,00 should be imposed for each infringement ascertained after 10 days from the filing of the judgment and for each day of delay in complying to such order; finally, the panel ordered the defendant to pay damages to be quantified in the remainder of the proceedings. The decision on expenses was remanded to definitive judgment.


INFRINGEMENT OF MICROSOFT TRADEMARKS ON COA (CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICITY) SOLD SEPARATELY FROM HARDWARE

20/12/2016

Italian court holds that it is unlawful to commercialize COAs (Certificates of Authenticity) which have been sold or purchased separately from the software they refer to and which without authorization reproduce the distinctive signs exclusively owned by Microsoft.


 

With decision dated 1 December 2016 the Court of Naples (Intellectual Property Division) granted Microsoft an ex parte order to be enforced against a Naples-based reseller of software products. The order required that products bearing signs infringing the “Microsoft” and “Windows” registered trademarks, and accompanying logos, should no longer be produced, imported, exported, distributed, offered for sale, commercialized, including via the Internet. The order also imposed a € 250,00 fine for each violation ascertained after the issuing of the order and a € 500,00 fine for each day of delay for failing to execute the order itself. Finally, the order obligated the party to withdraw from commerce all samples of the infringing products.

The Court, who also considered extracts of web pages named after and/or referring to the defendant, held that it had been proven that the defendant produced and/or commercialized and/or offered products, in particular COAs (Certificates of Authenticity) – which are fixed on the computers on which original Microsoft software has been installed – which could not be sold or purchased separately from the software product they refer to. The Court also found that unlawful use had been made of stickers related to Microsoft programs, in that they bore signs that infringed the Microsoft trademarks, a behavior that was judged consistent with the intention of illegally copying the software.

On 15 December 2016 the Court of Naples confirmed the aforesaid order, and also compelled the defendant to proceed with publication of the order on the Internet page of the defendant.


INFRINGEMENT OF MICROSOFT TRADEMARKS ON COA (CERTIFICATES OF AUTHENTICITY) SOLD SEPARATELY FROM HARDWARE

20/12/2016

Italian court holds that it is unlawful to commercialize COAs (Certificates of Authenticity) which have been sold or purchased separately from the software they refer to and which without authorization reproduce the distinctive signs exclusively owned by Microsoft.


 

With decision dated 1 December 2016 the Court of Naples (Intellectual Property Division) granted Microsoft an ex parte order to be enforced against a Naples-based reseller of software products. The order required that products bearing signs infringing the “Microsoft” and “Windows” registered trademarks, and accompanying logos, should no longer be produced, imported, exported, distributed, offered for sale, commercialized, including via the Internet. The order also imposed a € 250,00 fine for each violation ascertained after the issuing of the order and a € 500,00 fine for each day of delay for failing to execute the order itself. Finally, the order obligated the party to withdraw from commerce all samples of the infringing products.

The Court, who also considered extracts of web pages named after and/or referring to the defendant, held that it had been proven that the defendant produced and/or commercialized and/or offered products, in particular COAs (Certificates of Authenticity) – which are fixed on the computers on which original Microsoft software has been installed – which could not be sold or purchased separately from the software product they refer to. The Court also found that unlawful use had been made of stickers related to Microsoft programs, in that they bore signs that infringed the Microsoft trademarks, a behavior that was judged consistent with the intention of illegally copying the software.

On 15 December 2016 the Court of Naples confirmed the aforesaid order, and also compelled the defendant to proceed with publication of the order on the Internet page of the defendant.


LGV HAS BEEN INVITED BY AESVI, THE VIDEOGAME TRADE ASSOCIATION, TO PARTICIPATE AT A SALON DEDICATED TO YOUNG VIDEOGAME DEVELOPERS.

17/05/2016
Thanks to the experience acquired in the multimedia and videogame sector, LGV has been invited by AESVI, the videogame trade association, to participate at a salon dedicated to young videogame developers.


 

On Saturday May 14, 2016, Mr. Alessandro Bura of LGV participated at the Svilupparty event as a mentor. Svilupparty is an event organized by AESVI in Bologna that includes – among other initiatives – the possibility for young developers to get in contact with a team of entrepreneurs and industry professionals who have been preselected by AESVI on grounds of their competence and experience. In this way, the developers had the possibility to address their questions to the person of the team most competent to deal with them. Mr. Alessandro Bura, in his capacity as legal expert, was present to freely answer the questions of young developers concerning the legal issues involved in the protection of videogames, ranging from the contractual relationships existing between the parties active in the development of the products, to the connections with other platforms and users as well as collecting societies of authors’ rights, and finally also considering matters linked with legal protection of videogames.

Vedi comunicato AESVI


 

LGV CON AESVI AL SALONE SVILUPPARTY 2016 DEDICATO AI GIOVANI SVILUPPATORI DI VIDEOGIOCHI

17/05/2016
Grazie alla esperienza acquisita nel settore dei prodotti multimediali e dei videogiochi, LGV è stato invitato da AESVI, associazione di categoria dell’industria videoludica, a partecipare al salone dedicato ai giovani sviluppatori di videogiochi.


 

Sabato 14 maggio 2016 l’avv. Alessandro Bura di LGV ha partecipato all’evento Svilupparty in qualità di mentor. Svilupparty è un evento organizzato da AESVI a Bologna che prevede – fra la altre iniziative – la possibilità per i giovani sviluppatori di entrare in contatto con un team di imprenditori e di professioni del settore, preselezionato da AESVI sulla base della competenza e dell’esperienza. Gli sviluppatori hanno così la possibilità di rivolgere specifici quesiti al componente del team di loro interesse. In questo contesto l’avv. Alessandro Bura, in qualità di esperto legale, ha risposto in modo totalmente gratuito alle  domande dei giovani sviluppatori concernenti i profili legali della tutela dei videogiochi, dai rapporti contrattuali con i partecipanti allo sviluppo, fino ai rapporti con le varie piattaforme e con gli utilizzatori nonché  le società di raccolta dei diritti d’autore, per toccare infine anche i temi legati alla tutela legale del videogioco.

Vedi comunicato AESVI