RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/ITA/1
8August 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3363)
Original: English1Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Italy2
Thepresent document reproduces thequestions puttothedelegation ofItalyandtheresponses
given inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs at
theCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996.3
_______________
I. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS4
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
TheRegulations under theItalian Trademark Law(Article 19ofDecree No.795/1948) provide
thatclaiming priority shall concern afirsttrademark application filedinaMember State ofthe
International Union fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property.
Literally, thisruledoesnotrecognize apriority rightfornationals ofWTO Members, which
arenotMembers oftheParisUnion. However, Article 17ofDecree No.795/1948 generally establishes
thattheapplicant caninvoke, according totheinternational Conventions ,priority rights ofanapplication
filedinanother State; soitispossible torecognize priority rights onthebasisofanapplication filed
inanyWTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member.
Itshould benoted thatthefinalinterpretation isuptothecompetent courts.
1Theoriginal language oftheanswer tothefollow-up question from theUStoitsinitial question No.5isFrench.
2Asregards laws andregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified byItaly under Article 63.2 ofthe
Agreement, reference ismade todocuments IP/N/1/ITA/1; IP/N/1/ITA/1/Add.1-2; IP/N/1/ITA/G/1; IP/N/1/ITA/T/1;
IP/N/1/ITA/D/1; andIP/N/1/ITA/I/1.
3Theminutes ofthemeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
4Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/ITA/1
Page2
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Please explain whether apresumption oflikelihood ofconfusion isprovided through Italian
lawinthedetermination ofconfusing similarity involving identical marks thatareusedonidentical
goods, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please identify andexplain thelegal basis forthis
presumption.
InpursuanceofArticle1.1(a)ofRoyalDecreeNo.929of21June1942,asreplacedbyArticle1
ofLegislative Decree No.198of19March 1996, theowner ofaregistered trademark hastheright
toprevent thirdparties nothaving hisconsent from using asignidentical withorsimilar tohisown
trademark forgoods orservices which areidentical withthose inrespect ofwhich thetrademark was
registered. Alikelihood ofconfusion istherefore presumed under thelawinsuchcases asregards
theuseofasignconflicting withtheregistered trademark -which isfullyconsistent withArticle 16.1,
second sentence oftheTRIPS Agreement.
2. TRIPS Article 20states thatuseofatrademark shallnotbeencumbered byspecial requirements
suchasusewithanother trademark. However, Article 12oftheItalian Trademark Lawstates that
“amerchant mayaffixhisownmark tothegoods heputsonsale,butmaynotremove themark of
theproducer ormerchant fromwhom hehasreceived theproducts orgoods ”.Please explain how
thisprovision ofItalian lawcomplies withTRIPS Article 20.
Under Article 12ofRoyal Decree No.929of21June1942, theowner ofatrade name may
apply thelatter totheproducts offered forsalebyadding ittothemanufacturer 'strademark. This
provision, which isnotmandatory astoitsnature, cannot result inaffecting theknowledge or
distinctiveness acquired bythetrademark, since aproducer whoistheowner ofatrademark hasthe
righttoprescribe modalities fortheuseofsuchtrademark bytheseller andallsubsequent dealers (see
judgment No.3211of15May1986bytheCourt ofCassation, CivilSection -Division II).Furthermore,
itisprohibited tomake useofone'sowntrademark inamanner capable tomislead thepublic, especially
asregards nature, quality ororigin ofaproduct (Article 11ofRoyal Decree No.929of21June1942,
asreplaced byArticle 12ofLegislative Decree No.480of4December 1992).
3. Article 16ofItaly’sTrademark Lawsetsforththetypeofsignthatiscapable ofbeing protected
asatrademark. Please explain whether acolour, asdistinguished from“colour combinations or
tonalities ”isregistrable asatrademark under Italian trademark law,asrequired byTRIPS Article 15.1.
Under Article 16ofRoyal Decree No.929of21June1942, asreplaced byArticle 16of
Legislative Decree No.480of4December 1992, colours aswellasanycombinations ofcolours or
chromatic tonalities areeligible forregistration astrademarks ifcapable ofdistinguishing goods or
services. Actually, theexamples made bothintheaforesaid Article 16andinArticle 2oftheFirst
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of21December 1988, Article 4ofCouncil Regulation No.40/94 of
20December 1993 andArticle 15oftheTRIPS Agreement areonlymeant asanexemplification.5
4. Please explain whether thenature ofthegoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under Italian law. Ifso,please identify and
explain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority, andtherelative provisions oftheItalian law
thatserve asabasis forthese exclusions.
5Thetexts oftheCommunity instruments referred tocanbefound indocuments IP/N/1/EEC/T/1 and2.IP/Q2/ITA/1
Page3
Thenature ofthegoods orservices inrespect ofwhich anapplication isfiledfortrademark
registration doesnotgenerally form anobstacle toregistration, provided obviously thatproduction
orsaleofsuchgoods orservices arenotprohibited bycriminal law.
5. Please explain howunregistered well-known marks areprotected inItaly, asrequired byTRIPS
Articles 16.2and16.3.
Thespecial protection ofwell-known trademarks isduetothefactthatsignswhich areidentical
withorsimilar towell-known trademarks, asperArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention, arenoteligible
forregistration astrademarks since theyarenotnew, evenifregistration isapplied forinrespect of
goods which arenotsimilar (seeArticle 17.1(g) and(h)ofRoyal Decree No.929of21June1942,
asreplaced byArticle 3ofLegislative Decree No.198of19March 1996). Thus, Italian lawcomplies
withArticles 16.2and16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
[Follow-up question from theUnited States]
Cantheowner ofanunregistered well-known trademark recover damages andobtain injunctive
relief related totheuseofthatmark inItaly?
Asalready explained initem5ofourreplies tothequestions bytheUnited States, special
protection ofwell-known trademarks, asrequired byArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement, isprovided
forinArticle 17,paragraph 1(h)ofRoyal Decree No.929of1942, asreplaced bytherecent Legislative
Decree No.198of1996. Please notethatthisprovision doesnotrequire awell-known mark tobe
registered inItaly, whereas theother enforceable trademarks under Article 17,paragraph 1(d)to(g)
must beregistered inItalyoreffective inItaly.
Under Article 47ofRoyal Decree No.929of1942, asreplaced byLegislative Decree No.480
of1992, thetrademark isnullandvoidifitisregistered inbreach ofArticles 16and17ofthesame
Decree, including, obviously, theabove-mentioned provision inArticle 17,paragraph 1(h). Thismeans
thatanyinterested party -including, therefore, theowner ofthewell-known trademark -maybring
legalproceedings toobtain nullity ofthemark. Generally speaking, inanydispute aninterested party
mayaskthecourt forprovisional andprecautionary measures necessary toensure theeffects ofthe
finalruling required (Code ofCivil Procedure, Articles 700etseq.).
Theinfringer maybesentenced topayment ofdamages under Article 66(2) ofRoyal Decree
No.929of1942, asamended byLegislative Decree No.480of1992.
6. Article 42(1) oftheItalian Trademark Lawallows theproprietor ofatrademark topresent
“legitimate reasons ”tojustify continued registration despite non-use ofatrademark. Please explain
thetypes ofcircumstances thatwould besufficient tosatisfy thisprovision, including, where relevant,
results ofadministrative orjudicial decisions addressing thisissue.
Non-use ofatrademark doesnotentail itsforfeiture iftheowner canshow avalid[legitimate]
reason therefor. Thus, Article 42ofRoyal Decree No.929of21June1942, asreplaced byArticle 39
ofLegislative Decree No.480of4December 1992, isinlinewithArticle 10(1) oftheFirstCouncil
Directive 89/104/EEC of21December 1988.6Nodecisions ofcourts areknown toexistasregards
application ofthenewlegislation. However, itshould bepointed outthatthelatter isequivalent to
theoriginal wording ofArticle 42,whose application waslimited, inlightofthedecisions rendered,
6ThetextoftheCommunity instrument canbefound indocument IP/N/1/EEC/T/1.IP/Q2/ITA/1
Page4
toveryfewcircumstances arising independently ofthewilloftheowner -suchaswarorsequestration
oftheundertaking (Brescia Appellate Court, 9February 1956; Milan Appellate Court, 16June1953).
7. Please explain howgeographical indications areprotected under Italy’slaw,asrequired by
TRIPS Articles 22and23.
Under theprovisions currently inforce inItaly, geographical indications areprotected by
Article 31ofLegislative Decree No.198of19March 1996, which complies withtherequirements
laiddown inArticles 22and23oftheTRIPS Agreement. Itshould bepointed outthatsuchprotection
results fromconsidering anactofunfair competition, asperArticle 2598 oftheCivil Code, anyuse
ofgeographical indications inamanner capable tomislead thepublic.
8. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inItaly, inparticular:
(a) theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
(b) theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
(c) thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) Designs ormodels areprotected bypatents inItaly. Inthisregard, itshould benoted
thatArticle 1ofRoyal Decree No.1411 of25August 1940 makes reference, as
appropriate, totheprovisions included inRoyal Decree No.1127 of29June1939
concerning patents forinventions.
(b) Forthepurposes ofregistration, designs ormodels must bebothnewandoriginal.
Novelty mustbeassessed according tothecriteria applicable topatents forinventions
(seeArticle 14ofRoyal Decree No.1127 of29June1939) -i.e.,bytaking account
ofpre-existing designs andmodels. Originality mustconsist inaspecific ornament.
Itistherefore necessary thatsuchdesigns ormodels aretheexpression ofanew
aesthetic concept. Astothemainprocedures forregistration ofdesigns andmodels,
itshould bestressed thatunder Italian lawupto100designs maybedeposited bya
single application; agraphic representation ofthedesign ormodel istobesubmitted
along withthedeposit, andatwo-dimensional specimen ofthedesign ormodel may
alsobeprovided. Noprovision applies topublication ofthegraphic representation,
andtherefore tothepossibility todefer suchpublication, whereas deposit under sealed
cover isnotallowed. Noexamination procedure islaiddown, norarethird party
proceedings permitted inrespect ofregistration.
(c) Theowner ofadesign ormodel hastheexclusive right toputthedesign ormodel
intopractice; tomake useofandtradeintheproducts embodying suchdesign ormodel;
designs ormodels areprotected foratermof15years from thetimeofdeposit.IP/Q2/ITA/1
Page5
(d) Since reference ismade totheprovisions concerning patents forinventions (seeArticles
74to89ofRoyal Decree No.1127 of29June1939, aslastreplaced byLegislative
Decree No.198of19March 1996), thefollowing rights andlegal actions arealso
available totheowner ofapatent onadesign ormodel: actions forinfringement against
unlawful utilization ofthedesign ormodel and/or actions fordetermination ofpatent
validity; presumption ofvalidity ofthedesign ormodel, since theburden ofproof
isontheperson claiming invalidity orforfeiture ofthedesign ormodel; righttoobtain
information from thealleged infringer ontheproduction and/or marketing network;
righttoobtain description andsequestration oftheallegedly infringing products and/or
theimplements usedtoproduce them; righttoobtain ajudicial decision, whether final
orasaprecautionary measure, prohibiting manufacture, saleanduseofanygoods
which represent aninfringement ofthedesign ormodel; righttoclaim damages for
theinjury suffered onaccount oftheinfringement. Theaforementioned remedies are
without prejudice tothecriminal penalties imposed ontheinfringer.
(e) Since reference ismade totheprovisions concerning patents forinventions (seeRoyal
Decree No.1127 of29June1939, aslastreplaced byLegislative Decree No.198
of19March 1996), compulsory licensing andexpropriation areallowed inrespect
ofpatents fordesigns ormodels (see,inparticular, Articles 54to60ofRoyal Decree
No.1127 of29June1939, asamended byLegislative Decree No.198of19March
1996).
9. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Registration oftextile designs issimple andinexpensive inItaly, there being nocompulsory
examination astonovelty andoriginality andnopublication requirements (seeanswer toquestion 8(b)
above); furthermore, payment oftheprotection taxmaybemade -exclusively asregards textile designs -
onayearly basis rather thanforfive-year terms (seeArticle 12ofRoyal Decree No.1411 of
25August 1940, asreplaced byArticle 11ofLegislative Decree No.198of19March 1996).
III. REPLY TOQUESTION POSED BYJAPAN
Since itisnotclearly stipulated inthelawsandregulations ofItalyconcerning industrial designs
thattextile designs areprotected inconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement, please explain under which
provision ofthelawsandregulations orother copyright related lawthese designs areprotected.
Moreover, tomake surethattheopportunity toseekandobtain protection fortextile designs isnot
impaired unreasonably, please explain your system orpractice particularly withregard tocost,
examination orpublication (cf.paragraph 2ofArticle 25oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Textile designs areprotected bypatents inItaly, according toRoyal Decrees No.1127 of
29June1939 andNo.1411 of25August 1940, asmodified byLegislative Decree No.198of
19March 1996.
Forthepurposes ofregistration, designs ormodels mustbebothnewandoriginal. Novelty
must beassessed bytaking account ofpre-existing designs andmodels. Originality must consist in
aspecific ornament. Itistherefore necessary thatsuchdesigns ormodels aretheexpression ofanew
aesthetic concept. Astothemainprocedures forregistration ofdesigns andmodels, itshould bestressed
thatunder theItalian lawupto100designs maybedeposited byasingle application; agraphic
representation ofthedesign ormodel istobesubmitted along withthedeposit, andatwo-dimensional
specimen ofthedesign ormodel mayalsobeprovided. Noprovision applies topublication ofthe
graphic representation, andtherefore tothepossibility todefersuchpublication, whereas deposit underIP/Q2/ITA/1
Page6
sealed cover isnotallowed. Noexamination procedure islaiddown, norarethirdparty proceedings
permitted inrespect ofregistration.
Theowner ofadesign ormodel hastheexclusive righttoputthedesign ormodel intopractice;
tomake useofandtrade intheproducts embodying suchdesign ormodel; designs ormodels are
protected foratermof15years from thetimeofdeposit.
Thefollowing rights andlegalactions arealsoavailable totheowner ofapatent onadesign
ormodel: actions forinfringement against unlawful utilization ofthedesign ormodel and/or actions
fordetermination ofpatent validity; presumption ofvalidity ofthedesign ormodel, since theburden
ofproof isontheperson claiming invalidity orforfeiture ofthedesign ormodel; right toobtain
information from thealleged infringer ontheproduction and/or marketing network; righttoobtain
description andsequestration oftheallegedly infringing products and/or theimplements usedtoproduce
them; right toobtain ajudicial decision, whether finalorasaprecautionary measure, prohibiting
manufacture, saleanduseofanygoods which represent aninfringement ofthedesign ormodel; right
toclaim damages fortheinjury suffered onaccount oftheinfringement. Theaforementioned remedies
arewithout prejudice tothecriminal penalties imposed ontheinfringer.
Registration issimple andinexpensive inItaly, there being nocompulsory examination asto
novelty andoriginality andnopublication requirements; furthermore, payment oftheprotection tax
maybemade fortextile designs onayearly basis (Article 12ofRoyal Decree No.1411 of
25August 1940, modified byArticle 11ofLegislative Decree No.198of19March 1996).