Trademarks: the Italian Supreme Court rules on the ‘gold battle’ between food companies Barilla and Saiwa
With the decision no. 5099 dated 5 March 2014, the Supreme Court, upholding the Milan Court of Appeal decision, denied that the word ‘Oro’ (Italian for ‘gold’), as part of the compound trademark ‘Oro Saiwa’, is capable of being distinctive.
The proceeding between the two food companies started in 2002, when Saiwa sued Barilla Alimentare before the Court of Milan claiming the nullity of the sign ‘Oro’ as part of the compound trademark ‘Selezione Oro Barilla’. Saiwa alleged that Barilla’s ‘Oro’ trademark was anticipated by its prior trademarks ‘Oro Saiwa’, ‘Pacco Oro Saiwa’, ‘Pacco Oro’, Italian trademark ‘Oro’ and international trademark ‘Oro’. Furthermore, Saiwa also requested to ascertain the infringement of its trademarks and the unfair competition by the defendant.
Barilla appeared in that proceeding requesting the dismissal of counterpart’s claims and requesting the judge to declare the nullity of trademarks ‘Oro’ owned by Saiwa, as being devoid of distinctive character…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the NCTM briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from NCTM
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from NCTM
In Italy, measures have been taken to preserve the continuity of operation of industrial plants of national strategic interest.
Can the admission to concordato preventivo be revoked if creditors, informed by the judicial commissioner of fraudulent acts, approved the proposal of the debtor?
The Italian Supreme Court ruled that the disclosure of acts in fraud carried out by the debtor causes the admission to concordato preventivo to be revoked according to Article 173 IBL, even in case of approval by the creditors.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Being sent to London on secondment is a prized opportunity for associates in European firms