GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN 77 Code. Interestingly enough, the Court stated that the violation of a DO or a GI is also applicable in cases of reproduction of a single element of the relevant designation. In fact, in this case, the infringer did not entirely reproduce the Amarone Della Valpolicella DOCG, using only the term Amarone. Furthermore, the Court has also declared the invalidity of the trademark registered by Le Famiglie dell’Amarone d’arte, which claimed, after a limitation, that all the products bearing the sign were referred to wine products, realised in full compliance with the government of use of the Amarone Della Valpolicella DOCG, even though the sign was not registered in class 33 – the one concerning wine products –, only for marketing activities and fair trades (classes 35 and 4110). Consequently, the Court has also inhibited any activity promoting the Amarone Della Valpolicella DOCG. In the already mentioned Nobile Prima case, in its ruling of 21 October 2015, the Court of Florence sanctioned the designation’s use, in consideration of the prior well-known trademarks Vino Nobile Di Montepulciano, whose designation is also protected as a DOCG. The most curious aspect of the case is that the double title offered by the relevant sign made the Court separate, in the ruling’s arguments, the possible double protection, deriving from the collective geographical trademark and the designation of origin. In fact, the Court applied the Italian IP Code rules for the assessment of the trademark’s infringement and the rules against unfair competition for the DO’s violation. Consequently, the use of the trademark Nobile Prima has been judged as a case of infringement of the collective geographical trademark Vino Nobile di Montepulciano, according to article 20 of the Italian IP Code. However, the DO’s violation was not recognised as an act of unfair competition, under article 2598(1) of the Italian Civil Code, since, according to the Court, the challenged product was produced in the Chianti area and, as a consequence, the consumer would not be confused with the different famous area of production of the Montepulciano region. In any case, also considering the trademark’s reputation, the Court has condemned the challenged company – also according to article 2598(2) of the Italian Civil Code – for an act of unfair competition for misappropriation of qualities. This significant decision shows that registering a designation of origin as a collective geographical trademark may grant a wider protection, while, in some cases, the Courts of merits may not recognise the same protection to standard DOs or GIs. Nevertheless, the abovementioned ruling is somewhat disputed for the concrete imbalance between the protection offered to the trademark compared to the designation of origin. 10 Class 35 refers to advertising, business management, administration and office functions and class 41 refers to education, training and sports and entertainment services.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==