From Klein to Kapoor. How Artists try to Claim Monopolies over Colors.

Anish Kapoor has recently announced to have acquired the exclusive right of Vantablack, a particular pigment black so dark as to absorb the 99.96% of the light.
Vantablack is a substance made by Surrey Nano Systems company and it was developed and patented by Nasa for military purposes that facilitate the satellites’ transfer. The paint’s peculiarity is that it is able to absorb so much the light to prevent the human eye from identifying the type of shadows, which help human brain to understand the shape of an object: a crumpled piece of tinfoil with a coat of paint looks almost completely flat. It’s been a long time that Kapoor has started experimenting with Vantablack and working with the Surrey Nano Systems, the first company to be able to produce the pigment.
However, this is not the first time that an artist claims rights on particular colors. In 1960 the French artist Yves Klein patented “International Klein Blue (IKB)”, a particular tone of blue, that he had developed with a Parisian paints’ producer and used in several monochromatic paints. Klein died in 1962; however, IKB still exists and is still used nowadays.
The exclusive right could be a marketing strategy of the Surrey Nano Systems: link its material to one of the best contemporary artists. Otherwise, it could be the revival of a phenomenon already known in history, that links almost inextricably the use of color to the artist.

McDonald's Accused of Infringing the Copyright of American Graffiti Artists.

After the restyling of its restaurants, Mc Donald’s is trying to get closer to a younger audience and to defend itself from indiscriminate production of parodistic graffiti that defame the American company’s image.

However, with a huge boomerang effect, the American company attracted many lawsuits for rights violation by graffiti artists who accuse McDonald’s of copying them. The latest lawsuit was filed by Jean Berreau, Dash Snow’s former partner and current manager of his properties.

“Nothing is more antithetical regarding its reputation as outsider than the big companies’ consumerism which McDonald's and its marketing are the most importantexponents”. This is what it is written in the complaint. Snow, who actually was a descendant of a aristocrats French family.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the company’s new style is accused of violating copyright: last 25 March another writer, Norm, sued the fast food chain, accusing it of having copied his famous graffiti made in Brooklyn, in Bartlett Street (“Norm on the fire escape of Bartlett”). Unlike Snow, Norm is not against a commercial use of his job, indeed we worked with big firms. However, in his complaint he asserts that McDonald’s “has decided consciously to coat the walls around the world with its restaurants, by using Norm’s name, his art, style and brand”. Also, the company “has used and is still using copies of Norm’s work of art in several restaurants in Europe and Asia, without his consent. However, in less than a month, the writer renounced the suit, refusing any comment on the event: we don’t know whether Norm and the McDonald’s company come to an agreement.

Elena Ferrante. Between the "Right to be Forgotten" and Privacy.

“I don’t hate lies, I find them healthy and I use them to hide my person”. 
Thus, it’s written in the autobiography entitled La Frantumaglia by the famous and mysterious Elena Ferrante, whose identity seems to be revealed today.
The author of books become bestsellers is, according to a recent 24Ore’s report, Anita Raja, a translator born in Naples and resident in Rome, whose mother was a Polish Jew escaped from Holocaust. Therefore, the mystery of Elena Ferrante seems to be resolved. Thus, the millions of readers’ (lawful?) dream, who wish to know the name and person behind the famous pseudonym, finally come true.
Firstly, the question is if the report has violated the right of pseudonym. The pseudonym indeed can be used to conceal its true identity, so as an expression of privacy right.
According to Civil Code, pseudonym is a name different from the one attributed by law. However, it can be protected as well as the right to have a name, provided that the pseudonym has achieved the name’s importance otherwise it has carried out the same social identification’s function. If this requirement occurs, (i.e. writers and actors whose pseudonyms are more famous than their name) the person who use pseudonym can demand a restraining order and claim the termination of the pseudonym’s unlawful use, without prejudice to compensation.
However, it doesn’t seem to be the case. The Sole 24ore’s report indeed doesn’t infringe the famous writer’s pseudonym, on the contrary it seems to violate her right to anonymity. The problem is that according to Italian legal system, the general right to anonymity doesn’t exist.
Could Elena Ferrante, who has always said that she doesn’t want to reveal her real identity, invoke protection of Privacy Right (that it is increasingly being denied to public figures)?
Before Privacy Law entered into force, the source of the right to be left alone was a 1975 Italian High Court judgment, that describes this right as the protection of personal and family situations and events which, although they occur outside domestic context, they don’t have a socially valuable public interest. Therefore, violation of right to privacy means any interference that, even if it is carried out by lawful means and for non-offensive purposes, is not justified by reasonable public interests.
Eventually, jurisprudence specified that famous people are supposed to have waved to the part of Privacy Right which is connected to the public context.
Therefore, the line between the right to privacy and the right to information seemed to be the subject’s fame. However, even very popular people retain the privacy right, limited to facts which have nothing to do with the reasons for their popularity. 
The relationship between the right to report and privacy right is very complex and it is regulated by a set of rules stratified over time which have tried to establish a proper balance between the different interests.
There are several privacy rules that journalists have to respect.
The 675/1996 Law regarding Personal Data Protection, then become “Italian Personal data Protection Code” (Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003), has created an extensive system of balancing conflicting rights through the provision of several legal means: balancing policies, procedures to accomplish it, jurisdictional instruments.
Italian Law provides different guarantees depending on the nature of Data. Briefly, the use of Personal Data is possible if three conditions are met:
­    The use of Personal Data shall be related to freedom of expression
­    Personal Data shall concern public interest facts
­    the spread shall occur "within essential limits", that is, it is not possible to insert non-strictly necessary information.

The report on the true identity of Elena Ferrante has not been clearly neither confirmed nor disproved. Therefore, if she is really Anita Raja is still a mystery.

Ivanka Trump's Copycat S(c)andal.

Aquazzura was founded in 2011 in Florence by Colombian-born designer Edgardo Osorio to create glamorous, sexy shoes for the modern woman.

Aquazzura, has recently filed a trade dress infringement suit against Ivanka Trump and her licensee, Marc Fisher, for allegedly copying the design of the “Wild Thing Shoe” a best seller of the Florence based company.

Ivanka Trump owns a New York-based clothing and accessories collection, under which she released a  shoe collection.

According to Aquazzura, Ivanka Trump and Marc Fisher are producing footwear that “mimics every key element of the trade dress of Aquazzura’s well-known and distinctive” shoes, in particular, a $145 "exact copy" of its own $700+ Wild Thing style.

Aquazzura, alleges that Trump and Fisher make use of the trade dress of the Wild Thing Shoe. 

Under US Law a trade dress is a form of trademark protection that extends to the overall commercial image of a product that indicates or identifies the source of the product and distinguishes it from those of others. It may include the design or shape/configuration of a product.

Aquazzura, which has set forth claims for trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, is seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendants’ profits flowing from their use of infringing trade dress, damages, attorneys’ fees, and any “other relief as the Court deems just and proper.”

Brexit and your EU Trademark: and now what?

The European Union Trade Mark (the "EUTM") is a popular and versatile vehicle used to protect trade mark rights across the 28 Member States of the EU.
Brexit could result in the UK no longer being part of the EUTM regime because the EUTM Regulation would no longer be directly applicable in the UK.

At worst, in the absence of transitional legislation, existing EUTMs would no longer extend to the UK, and applicants would have to register a separate national trade mark to cover the UK. The UK Intellectual property Office (“IPO”) ha benne keen to ease any fears of UK trade mark owners although its statement avoided any mention of the one main approach that could have allayed such fears, i.e., transitional legislation to ensure the future recognition of EUTMs in the UK. It emphasizes in its statement that the UK government is exploring "various options" to ensure the long-term coverage of EUTMs, but fails to elaborate on exactly what these options may be. The IPO also hints at a future consultation to gauge the popularity of likely options among users of the trade mark system, so we can expect further detail on the government's plans in due course (although, again, the IPO makes no comment on timings).

The IPO does clarify that, even after the UK leaves the EU, UK businesses will still be able to register an EUTM which will cover all remaining EU Member States but anything other than that position would have been particularly surprising.

More tellingly, the IPO points to the fact that the UK is also a member of the Madrid system for the international registration of marks (the "Madrid System"), which could possibly signal a greater role for this international regime in the future of UK trade mark protection. The Madrid System is an international trade mark system, which allows users to file one application in one language, and pay one set of fees to protect trade marks in up to 113 territories, including the EU.

We continue to believe that, because of the current uncertainties and in order to minimize any risks associated with the Brexit change-over, anyone who owns EUTMs and views the United Kingdom as an important market may want to consider filing for United Kingdom trade mark registrations now, rather than waiting to see what happens when the United Kingdom formally exits the EU. And for new trade marks, we recommend filing in both the EU and the United Kingdom if the United Kingdom will be an important market for you. This increases costs only slightly and clearly secures a priority date for the United Kingdom.

The use of Twitter Hashtags and the CIO's trademark rights.

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) has been trying to prevent companies that aren’t official sponsors of the Games from using “official” Twitter hashtags such as #TeamUSA and #Rio2016.

Over the last few weeks, the USOC has sent letters to companies that sponsor athletes but don’t have a commercial relationship with the USOC or the International Olympic Committee, warning them against stealing intellectual property.

One of these letters, written by USOC, states: “Commercial entities may not post about the Trials or Games on their corporate social media accounts. This restriction includes the use of USOC’s trademarks in hashtags such as #Rio2016 or #TeamUSA.”

The mean-spirited approach is designed to protect sponsors – such as Coca Cola, McDonald’s, GE, P&G, Visa and Samsung – who fork out for marketing presence at the event.

It’s been possible to trademark hashtags in the US since 2013 but the application of trademark law to those tweeting hashtags may be wrong.  Indeed trademark infringement occurs when another party uses a trademark and confuses the public as to the source of a product or service that’s being used in commerce. That’s not what happens when you use a hashtag because you may not be selling a product or service, but just making statements on an open forum. How else do you indicate you are talking about the Rio 2016 Olympics without saying #Rio2016?

Aippi 2016 in Milano

Do you use Instagram?

Instagram, like many other image-sharing platforms, needs you to grant them the right to display your images, or else they would be violating your copyright by displaying your pictures in the app. Obvious? Maybe, but there’s more to it…

1.    You grant them a License

Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, “Content”) that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing (“posting”) any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels…

Does this mean you still own your pictures? Well, yes, but they can use it whenever they want. At the moment, they only use user pictures in seemingly harmless instances like blog posts and whatnot, so it may be true that the chances of Instagram exploiting user content for profit aren’t that high. That clause, however, is still there. Not to mention that if you’re on Instagram, you already agreed to it.

2.    Not unless your account is set to ‘Private’

…except Content not shared publicly (“private”) will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services. 
Great! But what if you use Instagram to gain followers? 

3.    Reps and warranties…

You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Instagram Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Instagram Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights or any other rights of any person, and (iii) the posting of your Content on the Site does not result in a breach of contract between you and a third party. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of Content you post on or through the Instagram Services.

In other words, DO NOT TAKE ANY PICTURE FROM THE INTERNET AND POST IT IN YOUR INSTAGRAM. 

4.    You wanna read the last sentence in that quote again? Ouch.

You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of Content you post on or through the Instagram Services.

In other words, the people over at Instagram have their backs covered. They won’t waste a penny if you get in trouble. This is why you don’t want to get sued (other than, well, obvious reasons). If the entity that sues you decides to include Instagram in the lawsuit (which they probably will since it was their service you used), it is my understanding from this clause that you could end up paying for your lawyer AND Instagram’s lawyer. That is, in addition to any damages you owe for copyright infringement, should you be found guilty. Ouch? OUCH.

By the way… Instagram is awesome, though, check it out if you haven’t done so already.

The Song does not Remain the Same.

Led Zeppelin have won a copyright lawsuit that claimed they had plagiarized the music to their most celebrated song, "Stairway to Heaven." A Los Angeles jury determined Thursday that the lawyer representing the estate of late guitarist Randy Wolfe, who played with the group Spirit, did not prove that the hard rockers lifted the song's intro from Spirit's 1968 instrumental "Taurus."

The lawsuit began  in 2014 alleging that Led Zeppelin would have been aware of the song "Taurus" and would have subsequently copied it. The track appeared on Spirit's 1968 self-titled debut and features an acoustic guitar line in descending chromatic pattern.

The jury’s verdict, which found substantial differences between “Stairway to Heaven” and Spirit’s instrumental track “Taurus,” followed a weeklong federal court trial in Los Angeles that had called into question the originality of the 1971 song by Led Zeppelin.

The jury found Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page had access to “Taurus,” a song written in 1967, but that the riff they were accused of stealing was not intrinsically similar to the opening chords of “Stairway.”

The Battle between Soundreef and SIAE Rages on.

With a measure of the last May 27 the Court of Milan suspendedthe execution promoted by SIAE against a Soundreef’s client company guilty, according to SIAE itself, for having paid royalties for the spread of environment music to the english collecting society.

Soundreef participated in the proceeding to support its client’s reason, arguing the legitimacy of intermediation carried out in Italy for rights to spread music within a commercial operation, while, according to SIAE, the english collecting society did not have any proxy for the mediation of such rights.

With the measure, the Judge – on the basis of case files – considered, for the time being, founded the Soundreef’s thesis and therefore rejected the SIAE’s appeal pending the decision of trial judgment.

According to the Court of Milan, SIAE did not, in fact, prove to have any proxy to mediate the copyrights on works used by the mentioned commercial operation and, in any case, did not have any right to charge penalties also requested to the user.

It should be understood the Soundreef’s future after the recent outcome of referendum on Great Britain’s exit from the European Union. Once the exit process from the European Union will be completed, Soundreef can no longer rely on the direct application of Barnier directive (EU 2014/26).

How to Revive a Vintage Trademark.

A recent trend has emerged wherein startups, with little or no relation to nostalgia brands from the past, will obtain the rights to bring a gone-but-not-forgotten product back to the market. From fashion to watches to candy, many new companies have taken dead or expired trademarks and given them new life. In fact, marketplaces have emerged where new businesses can purchase an old brand, but it isn’t usually necessary to buy a brand that’s no longer in use. 

Former couture label Paul Poiret was recently put up for sale by former owner Luvanis SA after being dormant for 80 years. 

Reviving a well-known brand can save millions of dollars in upfront marketing costs that can be used in other areas of the business. And, Marks contends, name recognition makes it easier to capture attention in a crowded marketplace, especially if customers remember the brand fondly.

The first step to reviving an old brand is finding out who owns the rights to the trademark, determining whether or not it’s still in use, and determining what you will need to do to obtain rights to the mark. Initially, you will want to conduct a trademark search in order to determine whether or not the trademark is available. You can hire a lawyer to conduct this process for you.

Trademark rights arise out of using the mark in commerce, and if a mark isn’t used, then the rights to use the mark becomes free. Generally, a trademark needs to have been used within the last five years in order to stay protected. If the mark has been abandoned, then it becomes available to others.

It’s up to you to obtain the trademark registration and use the mark in commerce in order to protect your rights to your new old brand. Consider buying the domain name for the product and forming a corporate entity for your new business.

If the trademark has been used recently, or the mark is still active on the registration, you may consider contacting the owner of the mark to inquire about its availability and offer to purchase it along with whatever other intellectual property you may need to bring your product back to life.

The Use of the Patronymic after a brand is sold. The Fiorucci case.

Recently the Italian Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling on the use of a patronymic as a trade mark. As known such use  can have important consequences the design and fashion industry. Many brands in this  industry are identified with the founder's name and about just remember brands like Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Valentino and in the latter case has seen the fashion house founder quit the capital at the end of the 90 .
However it has often happened that the use of the patronymic by the founder of the company after the sale of his brand was considered lawful by the Italian Courts as it was considered used in a purely descriptive manner of the designer and not distinctively.
Therefore, after the sale of the Fiorucci brand occurred in 1900 by Elio Fiorucci to the Japanese company Edwin International Group it seemed not disputed that the creation of a new brand called Love Therapy by Elio Fiorucci was lawful as the reference to Mr. Fiorucci’s name .
With this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the Patronymic by the founder, after the sale of the original trademark would create an entanglement interfering  with the use of the famous original trademark  sold.
It remains to understand how we can talk about slavish imitation when the launch of the project “Love Therapy by Elio Fiorucci's” occurred  over 13 years after the sale of the original Fiorucci Brand to Edwin International Group. 

International Legal Challenges Facing the Fashion Industry. Milan. June 8, 2016

We are pleased to inform you that Tsclex and the US law firm Kramer Levin & Naftalis (www.kramerlevin.com), together with the patronage of Camera Italiana Buyer Moda, will hold a fashion seminar in Milan dedicated to international legal challenges that the Fashion Industry is currently facing, in particular concerning intellectual property rights.

The seminar will be composed of two panels. The first dedicated to management and protection of trademark portfolios while the second to cross border M&A transactions in the fashion industry. 

The meeting will take place in the afternoon of June 8th at I Chiostri dell’Umanitaria, located behind the Court, in a convent of the XV century, and not far from Piazza Duomo.

Ravel's Bolero Falls in Public Domain.

On May 1, 2016 one of the most performed musical works to the world, the Bolero by Maurice Ravel, has fallen into the public domain almost one hundred years after its first performance in Paris. Composed in 1928 and performed for the first time on November 22 of that year at the Opera Garnier, the work was commissioned by Russian ballerina Ida Rubinstein, a friend and patron of Ravel.

 In almost 90 years the work was performed by the most prestigious orchestras in the world, under the direction of the greatest conductors, Toscanini, Abbado and Boulez. The Bolero has also inspired many choreographies, the most famous of which is probably that of Maurice Béjart represented in 1961.

Until 1994, the Bolero remained in first place in the world rankings of the copyright and it is estimated that between 1960 and today it has generated more than 50 million Euros of royalties.

The work's notoriety has caused, after the death of Ravel’s brother, Edouard in 1960, a long dispute between the supposed heirs, Edouard’s masseuse Jeanne Taverne, his driver and factotum, Alexander, the nephews of the composer and a director of SACEM, the French collecting society.

The Italian Patent Box. An opportunity for the exploitation of IP assets.

In December 2015, the Italian Government introduced the optional tax regime of the "Patent Box" which consists in an income fiscal relief for corporate revenues generated from intellectual property rights. 
In particular, the Patent Box tax regime applies to all forms of business entities like corporations; partnerships; individual entrepreneurs; stable organizations residing in white list countries.

The tax relief applies to all income derived from the exploitation of:
•    Patents;
•    Trademarks;
•    Designs and models;
•    Know How;
•    Software.

The peculiarity of the Italian Patent Box is that it extends the tax benefits  to all intangibles and therefore also to know-how and software but it does not apply  to nonprofit companies, professional associations and companies subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

The Patent Box will apply from the tax year following the year December 31, 2014 and to obtain the relief taxpayers must enter into an Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA) with the Italian Revenue Agency.

In the first two years (2015 and 2016) the exemption is 30% and 40% of the relevant income; thereafter it is se to 50%. Thus, from 2017 if all the expenditure underlying the resulting intangible qualifies under the nexus approach, the effective tax rate for the related income will be reduced to 15.7% instead of the standard 31.4%.

Our firm is able to assist companies and tax advisors in order to obtain the Patent Box tax benefits in drafting legal opinions on the value of assets subject to IP Patent Box, assessing the client’s IP portfolio and  the registration of trademarks, software and assessing a companies’ know-how in order to identify their intangibles portfolio.

adidas, the brand with 3 (or 2) stripes...

Recently the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in favour of adidas in its opposition to an application for registration of a Community trade mark brought by Shoe Branding Europe.
Shoe Branding Europe registered a trademark with two stripes and the filing was opposed by the famous German shoe manufacturer. 
Initially the opposition was dismissed by OHIM’s Opposition Division and by the Board of Appeal, both of which held that adidias’ three-stripe mark could enjoy protection only against identical or virtually identical reproductions and that, in the instant case, there were sufficient differences to dispel any likelihood of confusion (notably the number of stripes, the sloping and the positioning). adidas successfully appealed to the General Court, which found that the Board was wrong to say the marks were dissimilar and that, further, given that adidas had shown reputation in the three parallel stripes, this was sufficient to support both a finding of a likelihood of confusion and trade mark infringement.
Shoe Branding appealed to the CJEU, which wholly endorsed the General Court’s reasoning, finding that the differences between the two marks were of a minor nature and “that the difference between two and three stripes placed on a shoe was not sufficient to affect the similarities arising from the configuration of the signs at issue and from their position on the side of the shoe”. The CJEU held that minor differences between the marks at issue would not be noticed by a consumer having an average level of attention and would not influence the overall impression produced by the marks on account of the presence of wide sloping stripes on the side of the shoe.

The Italian IP court on the Protection of Unregistered Fabric Designs.

At the end of February the Milan IP Court  rendered an interesting order on the protection of unregistered design protection with respect to fabric design.
The law suit was commenced by an historic Italian cotton mill specialized in the production of high-end shirt fabrics and it was brought against another Italian competitor  accused of infringing 54 original fabric prototypes created by the plaintiff. 
The Court found that  plaintiff’s unregistered designs were indeed granted protection under EC Regulation no. 6/2002 while on the other hand the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence of lack of novelty and individual character of the designs in question.
It is useful to recall that an Unregistered Community Design (UCD) is granted a per se protection if the design is Novel and if it possesses an individual character. For a UCD to be Novel, it must differ from prior designs by more than immaterial details. For a UCD to possess individual character, it must produce a different overall impression on the informed user from prior designs. In many cases, the informed user is likely to be the end user of the product. In fields where the designer has less design freedom, the difference between protectable designs and prior designs will not be as great as where the designer had complete design freedom. This is also reflected in the infringement rights arising from the UCD.
In addition, the Court also decided that the defendant’s conduct also infringed the Italian unfair competition rules under the Italian Civil Code as the copy of the models resulted in the misappropriation of the claimant’s research and development investments in order to enter the market at a reduced cost. 

The Court of Naples on a Burger Trademark.

Naples may well be the capital of pizza, but recently the IP Court of the famous Italian city judged on the distinctiveness  of the word “Ham” for identifying an Italian Hamburger franchise. 
The applicant, owner of the trademark “HAM HOLY BURGER” and of the corresponding domain name and website learned that a competitor (Ham S.r.l.) had started selling quality meat under the (figurative) trademark “HAM”, through the website “ham-burger.it”.
Ham Srl argued that its project preceded  the applicant’s trademark application  and stated that the “HAM HOLY BURGER” trademark was descriptive and thus weak and, in any case, that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs. 
In the Court’s view the word “ham” is generally known by the large Italian public – even to that part of the population the part that is not familiar with the English language – as it is the first part of the word “hamburger”, a term commonly used in the Italian language to indicate a patty of pressed beef. The term “ham”, in other words, would not so much evoke a cut of hog meat (for those who know English), but rather, hamburgers, for most consumers. Therefore, in a trademark such as “HAM HOLY BURGER”, cannot not be granted any exclusive protection. Consequently there is also no risk of confusion between the signs of the two competitors.

Coke's New Bottle is not distinctive enough to be registered as a Trademark.

Eu Judges have recently stated that Coca-Cola new version of the iconic bottle curvaceous design is not distinctive enough.The world’s biggest soft-drink company sought to convince the EU General Court in Luxembourg that consumers would see it as a “natural evolution” of the earlier shape loved by designers and artists from Andy Warhol to Salvador Dali.

But the court ruled on Wednesday that the shape is “a bottle like the majority of bottles on the market.” It’s a “mere variant of the shape and packaging” of such products “which will not enable the average consumer to distinguish” this shape from others. Shape trademarks aren’t easy to get. The EU courts in past cases have set clear rules that for a shape to get intellectual property protection, owners must prove that consumers can recognize the product exclusively by that characteristic, and not in combination with a logo or another sign. Coca-Cola has been trying since 2011 to get an EU trademark for the bottle shape, whether made out of glass, metal or plastic. The trademark office based in Alicante, Spain, in 2014 decided the shape lacked any “distinctive character.”

Avoiding Notary Fees when Incorporating an Innovative Start Up.

On February 19, the Minister of Economic Development signed a decree, which introduces the possibility of certain types of companies without the aid of a Notary.  
The decree, which constitutes an important new element to encourage the creation of innovative start-ups, refers to those companies as defined by art 25 of Decree 179/2012, the so-called Growth 2.0 Decree.
This innovation shall mean that the articles of association and the deed of incorporation  may be written directly by members of the startup and the Company Registrar of Companies will authenticate the signatures and will proceed to a real time registration of the company.
The measure therefore allow for the establishment startup process is much more simple and convenient: the company may in fact be formed immediately eliminating the costs of preparing for notary public act.
According to Italian law innovative start-ups are limited liability companies, sometimes even in the form of cooperatives and non-listed companies, which:
-    Have carried out business activities for no longer that the last five years;
-    Are established in Italy or in a European Union Member State with a production office or a branch in Italy;
-    Sales do not exceed 5 million euros;
-    They do not distribute and have not distributed profits;
-    Develop, produce and market innovative products or services with high technological value.
Innovative start-ups must moreover possess the following additional requirements:
i)    Invest in research and development profits for at least 15 percent;
ii)    At least two-thirds of the workforce is made up of employees with research doctoral degree or who are doing a PhD at Italian or foreign university, or have a master's degree;
iii)    Are holders or licensees of at least one IP asset related to an industrial, biotechnological invention, to a topography of semiconductor product, a new plant variety or are holders of the rights to a computer program for the original, provided that such deprivation adhere directly to the corporate purpose and activity of enterprise.