Italy – Trade Secrets: new regulation for a better protection

27 Juni 2018

  • Italien
  • Geistiges Eigentum

Over the last year, the escalation of cryptocurrencies has aroused a number of issues and controversial debates for the lack of regulation in most jurisdictions, including Italy where the only regulation of the cryptocurrency phenomenon is set by the AML legislation. According to the Italian law, cryptocurrencies do not have legal tender status, the regulators have qualified cryptocurrencies as means of exchange different from e-money, which, however, can be converted into Euro for purchasing virtual currency as for selling such currency; moreover, they can be used to buy both virtual and real goods and services. As a matter of fact, the lack of regulation concerning cryptocurrencies as a form of currency and a financial instrument does not prevent the trade and use of cryptocurrencies not only as means of payment but also as contribution to fund the share capital of limited liability companies.

On July, 18th, the Court of Brescia has denied the validity of a resolution increasing the share capital of a limited liability company subscribed for by certain utility tokens because the relevant contribution (equal to Euro 714,000) didn’t comply with Article 2464 of the Civil Code. The Court has not banned the contribution of cryptocurrencies but based on that case it has remarked the criteria governing contributions in kind which were not met for the subscription of the increase of share capital as resolved by the company; giving that, and starting from this assumption, it is possible to highlight criteria requested by the Italian law to contribute cryptocurrencies into share capital.

Any (tangible and intangible) asset can be contributed into the share capital of joint-stock companies (S.p.A.) and limited liability companies (S.r.l.) to the extent that they have an indisputable economic value (as proved by a sworn appraisal from an expert who issues the relevant report) and a potential market where they can be exchanged and/or converted into cash. The report must be focused on the description of the contributed assets, the reference of the adopted criteria of evaluation, and the certification that their value is, at least, equal to the one assigned at the moment of the subscription of the capital and of the premium, if any. As a matter of fact, the function of the share capital is to guarantee the creditors in relation to the company liabilities, as a consequence it is mandatory that the economic value of the share capital must be indisputable and in compliance with the law, especially when including cryptocurrencies or digital assets.

Moving on the case, the cryptocurrencies contributed were issued by a company based in Bulgaria, they were utility tokens used as mean of payment for buying goods and services on a web platform, owned by the issuers of these digital assets. Hence these tokens were not traded in any exchange platform where it is possible to fix an indisputable exchange rate and then the relevant economic value. Indeed, the Court has reasoned the direct proportion between the value of the contribution into the equity and the existence of exchanges where the value of the cryptocurrency would have been set. Moreover, the Court has stated the lack of enforceability of the tokens contributed. Under the practical side, the contribution of cryptocurrencies has to be made by reporting the private key from the contributor to the company, giving that the enforceability of cryptocurrencies by a pledge can be done subject to the collaboration and the consent of the contributor who has to disclose the private key; should the contributor refuse to disclose the private key, the enforceability of the pledge on the tokens would be undermined.

To sum up, in theory the contribution of cryptocurrencies into equity is not forbidden under the Italian law, however giving its questionable nature, it is still controversial how to guarantee the compliance with the mandatory requirements for the contribution in kind.

This case history and the order of the Court of Brescia give us the opportunity to provide the Italian picture on cryptocurrencies.

The Italian crypto-scenario is quite effervescent since the beginning of 2017; indeed, Italy was the first European country to define the virtual currency and the exchanger according to the new AML legislation. This is not strange considering that the anonymity surrounding cryptocurrencies, which varies from complete anonymity to pseudo-anonymity, prevents cryptocurrency transactions from being adequately monitored, allowing shady transactions to occur outside of the regulatory perimeter and criminal organisations to use cryptocurrencies to obtain easy access to „clean cash“. Anonymity is also the major issue when it comes to tax evasion.

The AML Law

Legislative Decree no. 90 of May 25th 2017, which reformed legislative decree no. 231/2007, introduced definitions of exchanges and virtual currencies and provided a set of rules for the exchanges to comply with the anti-money laundering rules.

Virtual currency means “a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, nor attached to a legally established fiat currency, which can be used as a means of exchange for the purchase of goods and services and transferred, stored and traded electronically.” Virtual currencies within the scope of AMLD5 and of the Italian AML Law are those that can be transferred, stored and traded electronically. Until now, other virtual currency schemes are not in scope, including virtual currencies used to attain goods and services without requiring exchange into legal tender or similar instruments, or the use of a custodian wallet provider.

Exchanges are defined as virtual service providers: “any natural or legal person providing professional services to third parties for the use, the exchange, the related storage of virtual currencies and for the conversion from or in currencies having legal tender [.]” Given this scope, they are subject to anti-money laundering regulations and, therefore, they have to obtain a sort of licence and be listed in a special register to operate in Italy. Considering this definition, it seems that a material number of key players are not included in AML law, for example miners and pure cryptocurrency exchanges that are not custodian wallet providers, hardware and software wallet providers, trading platforms and coin offerors. This choice of the legislator leaves blind spots in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion. However, a decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is under discussion, which seeks to extend the monitoring not only to exchanges but also to those subjects that accept cryptocurrencies for the sale of services and goods.

As said, apart from the AML Law, there is a lack of regulation which undermines the grade of protection of users and investors.

The protection of users/investors

One of the issues which prevents or undermines the grade of the protection is that crypto markets and crypto players can be located in jurisdictions that do not have effective money laundering and terrorist financing controls in place or do not have any regulation for their offering to the investors. Moreover, against the risk of default of the platform or the exchanges there is very little to do to protect investors especially at a cross-border level.

The protection of users/investors depends on several factors, the first one being the nature of the cryptocurrencies in question and the crypto-platforms (i.e. what they are, where they are based and whether they are compliant with the Italian law).

The nature of the cryptocurrencies has to be identified on a case-by-case basis. If qualified as securities (standard financial products which are transferable and generate profits), the prospectus rules should apply, this meaning that a prospectus is required under the Consolidated Financial Law (“Testo Unico Finanza” or “TUF”) to disclose significant financial risks to investors. If they are a hybrid made up of a means of payment and an investment component, the application of the TUF provisions is controversial.

From a criminal perspective, users/investors can be protected in case of fraud irrespective of the above factors. The general remedies under the criminal law apply.

The landmarks for investors’ protection are:

  • The AML Law defining the subjects obliged to declare their activities in the cryptocurrencies world (e. the custodian wallet providers and the virtual currency exchanges);
  • The TUF rules, inter alia, the prospectus regulation; and
  • The Consumers’ Code rules the mandatory provisions on the „form and pre-contractual information“.

The common ground of civil actions is the disclosure of pre-contractual information to investors and the compliance of crypto-platforms and exchanges with the Italian law.

Civil actions might be brought against platforms:

  • Pursuant to Articles 50 and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, according to which any contract must provide consumers with mandatory „pre-contractual information“.
  • Pursuant to Article 23 of the TUF, according to which any contract providing investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

In 2017, the Court of Verona declared a contract null and void because of its breach of the mandatory provisions on the „form and pre-contractual information“ and ordered the refund of the money to the consumer. From the consumers’ perspective, all the information about the nature, the risks and the features of any cryptocurrency must be provided in advance to individuals in a transparent manner. As a matter of fact, the Court of Verona has reasoned that any online agreement between parties, implying the exchange of real money for virtual money, represents a financial service or rather “a paid service.” The Court judged that the contract between the exchange and the Italian consumer was null and void, as the IT service firm breached the obligations set forth by Articles 50 on „distance contracts“ and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, which provide as mandatory the „form and pre-contractual information“ to be provided to consumers. Lastly, the Court ordered to return to the Italian plaintiff the amount invested in cryptocurrencies.

For the sake of completeness, the consumers’ protection has been achieved also by the Italian Antitrust Authority (i.e. the non-governmental organization focused on consumer protection), which stopped the operations of several affiliates of OneCoin, the digital currency investment scheme widely accused of fraud.

In 2017, Consob (National Authority for the Stock Exchange) banned the advertisement and then the offer of investment portfolios containing cryptocurrencies, made in breach of the prospectus regulation.

Pursuant to Article 101, Par. 4, Part c) of the TUF, Consob has prohibited the advertising – via the website www.coinspace1.com – of the public offer for ‘cryptocurrency extraction packages’ launched by Coinspace Ltd (Resolution no. 19968 of April 20th 2017). The offer had already been the subject of a precautionary 90-day suspension. Moreover, on December 6th, 2017, pursuant to resolution no. 20207, under Article 99, paragraph 1, letter d) of the TUF, Consob banned the offer to the Italian public of „investment portfolios“ carried out without the required authorizations by Cryp Trade Capital through the website https://cryp.trade. A few months later, in March 2018, the website https://cryp.trade was subjected to precautionary seizure by the Criminal Court of Rome pursuant to Article 166 of the TUF (a criminal provision which punishes those who carry out financial services and activities without Consob’s authorization). The common ground of these resolutions issued by Consob is the absolute lack of the mandatory information and prospectus set forth by the TUF for entities providing financial services to Italian investors trading in cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-related products. Given the application of the TUF, pursuant to Article 23, any contracts for the provision of investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

Both resolutions have remarked how the Italian versions of the websites were the evidence that those offers were targeted to the Italian market, therefore Consob has set the criteria to identify the territoriality of the crypto-platforms subject to the Italian law which is: “where the cryptocurrencies are intended to be offered to the public”.

To complete this overview, some highlights follow on ICOs and the tax regime of cryptocurrencies in Italy.

ICOs

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are not regulated by the Italian law. In ICOs the funding collected by a start-up could also be exchanged for an equity token (very similar to securities and then embodying an interest in the issuing start-up) or a utility token, which entitles the holder to exchange it for goods or services provided by the same start-up.

ICOs are very controversial (even if not yet officially banned by Consob), as they issue equity tokens that, due to their similarity to securities, can be offered to the public of investors only by entities duly authorized by the regulators, according to the TUF. As far as utility tokens, in theory their issuance might be allowed subject to a strict set of contractual rules, in order to protect investors as much as possible. However, the ICOs market has not taken off, yet.

The tax regime

For Italian tax purposes, the taxation of cryptocurrencies is not regulated by Law. Nonetheless, the Italian Revenue Agency issued a Ruling in May 2018 providing that gains on virtual currency for individuals trading outside a business activity are treated as gains arising from the disposal of traditional foreign currency. Consequently, gains relating to forward sale are always taxable, rather gains relating to forward sale are taxable only to the extent that, during the tax period, the average amount of the overall virtual currency maintained by the taxpayer exceeds the equivalent of EUR 51,645.69 for seven days in a row (the exchange rate to use is the one given by the website where the individual carried out the transaction). Any gain is therefore subject to 26% withholding tax. Additionally, the taxpayer must comply with the tax monitoring duties in the Individual Tax Return though he is not exempted from wealth tax (IVAFE), to the extent that virtual currency is not held through institutions or other authorized intermediaries by the Bank of Italy.

The same regulatory uncertainty put on the taxation of corporations trading in virtual currency. In a Ruling issued in September 2018, the authorities submitted that exchanges of bitcoins for legal currency constitute, for income tax purposes, a taxable event subject to Ires (24%) and Irap (3.9%).

For indirect tax purposes, the authorities confirmed that trading in bitcoins and other virtual currencies is similar to the activity of an intermediary negotiating in financial instruments, and, as a consequence, it is exempt from VAT under the Italian provision implementing article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive (2006/112). Therefore, when bitcoins are exchanged for real currencies, no VAT is due on the value of the bitcoins themselves.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

It is often the case – in practice – that an ongoing commercial relationship builds slowly over time through a series of sales agreements, without the parties ever signing an actual distribution agreement to set down their respective rights and responsibilities.

At first blush this might appear to be a good thing: one can sidestep being bound, especially long-term, to the other party. But on closer scrutiny the solution becomes problematic, especially for anyone operating internationally.

One of the key issues that arises when an international contractual arrangement is not in writing, is identifying the court with jurisdiction over any dispute arising therefrom. In the European Union, the issue is resolved by the provisions of Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussels I recast”). Pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation, as an alternative to the defendant’s courts, jurisdiction in a contractual dispute may lie with the court in the place of performance of the obligation in question. Next to this general rule are two criteria to identify the “place of performance”, differentiated according to the type of contract at issue. For a contract for goods, it is the place of delivery for the goods; in a contract for services, it is the place where the services are provided.   

Thus, to identify the court with jurisdiction, it is crucial that a contract fall under one of these categories: goods or services.

No doubt this distinction is quite simple in many circumstances. In the case of a distribution agreement, or of a commercial concession agreement, the issue may become thorny.

The European Court of Justice has analysed this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in their judgement of 8 March 2018 (Case no. C-64/17) following the request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese Court of Appeal. The parties to the action were a Portuguese distributor, a company called Lusavouga, and a Belgian company called Saey Home & Garden, that produced articles for the home and garden, including a line of products branded “Barbecook”.

Following Saey’s decision to break off the commercial relationship – notice of which was sent in an email dated 17 July 2014 – Lusavouga brought action in Portugal seeking compensation for the unexpected termination of the agreement, and goodwill indemnity. Saey raised a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Portuguese court, citing their general conditions of sale (mentioned in their invoices) which required that a Court in Belgium be competent for dispute resolution.

The facts thus presented two issues to be resolved in light of the Brussels I recast Regulation: deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a vendor’s general terms and conditions pursuant to Art. 25 of the Regulation shall apply, and, if not, choosing the court with jurisdiction under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

Shall a jurisdiction clause contained within a vendor’s general terms and conditions apply to a distribution relationship?

The supplier company apparently considered their course of dealing with the Portuguese retailer nothing more than a concatenation of individual sales of goods, governed by their general terms and conditions. Consequently, they argued that any dispute arising from the relationship should be subject to the jurisdiction clause identifying Belgium as the court with jurisdiction under those terms and conditions.

Thus, a determination was needed on whether, under these facts, there was a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 25, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1215/2012.

The Court of Justice has long opined that if the jurisdiction clause is included in the general contract conditions drafted by one of the parties, the contract signed by the other party must contain an express reference to those general conditions in order to ensure the real consent thereto by the parties (judgement of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani, case no. 24/76; judgement of 16 March 1999, Castelletti, case no. C-159/97; judgement of 7 July 2016, Höszig, case no. C-225/15). Moreover, to be valid, the clause must involve a particular legal relationship (judgement of 20 April 2016, Profit Investment SIM, case no. C-366/13).

In the instant case, the referring court found it self-evident that the legal relationship at bar was a commercial concession agreement entered into for the purpose of distributing Saey products in Spain, a contract that was not evidenced in writing.

From this perspective, it is clear that the general conditions contained in the Saey invoices could have no bearing on the commercial concession agreement: assuming Lusavouga’s consent had been proven, the selection of Belgium as the forum would have applied if anything to the individual sales agreements, but not to those duties arising from the separate distribution agreement.

What, then, would be the court with jurisdiction for the duties arising from the commercial concession agreement?

Absent any jurisdiction clause, the issue would be decided under Art. 7, point 1 of Regulation 1215/2012, under which it becomes imperative to establish whether a contract is for goods or for services.

The “provision of services” has been defined by the Court of Justice as an activity, not mere omissions, undertaken in return for remuneration (judgement of 23 April 2009, Falco, case no. C-533/07).

With the judgements in Corman Collins of 19 December 2013 (case no. C-9/12), and Granarolo of 14 July 2016 (case no. C-196/15), the Court held that in a typical distribution agreement, the dealer renders a service, in that they are involved in increasing the distribution of supplier’s product, and receives in consideration therefor a competitive advantage, access to advertising platforms, know-how, or payment facilities. In light of such elements, the contract relationship should be deemed one for services. If on the other hand the commercial relationship is limited to a concatenation of agreements, each for the purpose of a delivery and pickup of merchandise, then what we have is not a typical distribution agreement, and the contractual relationship shall be construed as one for the sale of goods.

Once the contract has been categorised as one for services, one must then determine “the place where, under the contract, the services are provided”. The Court specifies that such location shall be understood as the member state of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract  or – as in the case at issue – the actual performance of the same. Only where it is impossible to identify such location shall the domicile of the party rendering the service be used.

From the referring court’s description of the contractual relationship, and from the Court of Justice’s understanding of the distributor’s performance of services, it would be logical to find that the principal location for performance of services was Spain, where Lusavouga “was involved in increasing the distribution of products” of Saey.

It is clear that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor would ever have intended such a result, and they might have avoided it being chosen for them by reducing their agreement in writing, including a jurisdiction clause therein.

By the same token, viewed from the outside, the Portuguese judges’ apparent conviction that the situation was one of an actual dealership contract would leave ample room for debate. After all, a number of elements would lead to the opposite conclusion. However, even in terms of that aspect, the absence of a written contract left room for interpretation that might lead to unforeseen – and perhaps rather risky – consequences.

In conclusion, the wisdom of setting down the terms and conditions of a sales distribution agreement in writing appears clear. This is not only because one can avoid those ambiguities we have described above, but also because it specifies other important clauses stipulated by the parties that should not be left to chance: exclusivity of area, if any, or with respect to specific sales channels, the contract period and termination notice, any duties to promote the product, control over end-user personal data, and the possibility of, and methods for, any online sales of products.

The relationship between influencers and advertising is one of the most interesting topic of the recent years, and one to which many operators in the sector are devoting energy and money.

In this article we will return to talk about the legal problems that influencer marketing makes it necessary to analyze.

There are many problematic profiles that can arise from the activity of influencers, pursuant to a fundamental principle of advertising discipline: any form of commercial communication and/or advertising must clearly be recognizable as such.

It is known that influencers, thanks to the reputation they have on social network, Instagram among all, are often paid to post pictures that portray them along with products given for free companies that have sponsored the post itself. The situation described can well be considered as a real advertising activity, considering that there is an individual that receive remuneration for promoting a product to the community. However, in the sponsored post there is no mention of the fact that the activity carried out by influencers is a genuine and effective advertising activity: the influencers simply post the picture and describe the product , obviously in a positive way, as if it were “a private story in the style of Instagram“ (injunction of the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute (IAP) Control Committee no. 57/2018).

It is certainly on the basis of these considerations that, in the last two months, we have assisted to a real crackdown in the IAP, the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute (“Istituto di Auto-disciplina Pubblicitaria). The IAP Control Committee notified many influencers, as well as the companies producing the good displayed in the sponsored posts, injunctions aimed at inhibiting the publication of certain posts released by the influencers themselves.

The common element of all these injunctions is the criticism of a behavior that showed a purely advertising activity as if it were a spontaneous choice of the influencer. This circumstance leads to a situation in which, using the words of the IAP injunction No 61/2018 of 14 June 2018, there are “communication conveying eminently promotional content of the product and the brand in question, that is however not sufficiently explicit and therefore not immediately recognisable to the public”.

In fact, what is being contested in the above-mentioned injunctions, but also in others, such as in the injunction no. 51/2018, is the violation of art. 7 of the Italian Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Code (“Codice di auto-disciplina pubblicitaria). The code is the source of the above-mentioned principle that states that any form of commercial communication must always be recognisable as such. Furthermore, the Code says that „in the means and forms of commercial communication in which contents and information of other kinds are disseminated, commercial communication must be clearly distinguished by means of appropriate measures„.

The measures taken by the Control Committee involve not only influencers, but also companies, as the latter actually benefit from an activity that can be considered a form of surreptitious advertising.

Please, allow me a note.

Take for example the injunction no. 50/2018, regarding two Instagram’s posts of the influencer Chiara Nasti, that portrayed her with products marked with the trademark „Sunsilk“: having noted that the two posts of Nasti’s Instagram profile violated the above-mentioned art. 7 of the Italian Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Code, the injunction states the essential need for  „transparency of communications„, that allows an effective distinction, and not a merely formal one, of promotional communications from any other type of communication.

Analyzing the guidelines elaborated on this matter by the IAP, the so-called „Digital Chart“, it results that it is considered compliant for the purpose of the recognition of an advertising communication as such, that a post on Instagram or on another social network presents the hashtag #advertising, or even simply the hashtag #ad.

In this respect, the IAP’s guidelines may leave a little baffled. In fact, while recognizing that the choice in question is an attempt to mediate between the need to protect the consumer and the activity of influencer, it is legitimate to doubt about the effectiveness of the hashtag #ad. As a matter of fact, it is reasonable to doubt that the hashtag #ad, written under a picture on a social network, is in itself suitable to make it clear to the user and to the average consumer that the post ha an advertising message. In fact, it can be assumed that many users do not know that the term „ad“ is the abbreviation for „advertising“, especially considering that the average user of influencers is represented by young people aged between 14 and 18 years. In a nutshell, the hashtag #ad would be able to “disguise” the advertising activity.

On the other hand, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM – Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) and some German judges (and the German legal system is known to be particularly attentive to new technologies law) also reached these conclusions. In this respects, it is worth reading the Case 13 U 53/17 of the Celle Higher Regional Court, that concerns to precisely the hashtag #ad and reaches conclusions similar to those mentioned above.

It should also be noted that, so far, it has been mentioned the Italian Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Code, a regulatory text issued by the IAP, whose injunctions or decisions bind exclusively the companies adhering to its system of self-regulation.

However, it is clear that, in cases such as those described above, is applicable a specific Italian legislation, the so-called Consumer Code (Legislative Decree no. 206/2005 – Codice del Consumo), Furthermore, surreptitious advertising violates the prohibition of misleading and unfair commercial practices, as stated in various articles of the Consumer Code.

The consequences are relevant, because the Consumer Code and its Implementing Regulations implicate the intervention of the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) or the Italian Regulatory Authority for Communications (Agcom – Autorità Garante per le Comunicazioni), both having sanctioning powers toward any person (with particular reference to financial sanctions).

What arises from this brief examination is that this phenomenon is particularly interesting and widespread throughout the world.

The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

Last 7 June, legislative decree no.63 of 11 May 2018 implementing EU Directive no.2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on “on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure”, was published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Italy, pursuant to article 15 of Delegated Law no. 163 of 25 October 2017.

The purpose of this act was twofold: on the one hand, it assisted in matching the already existing Italian legislation – in particular, articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property – with the new EU legislation; whilst, on the other hand, it implemented new and more effective provisions of law on the protection of trade secrets.

The European Union introduced Directive no. 943/2016 in order to harmonize and ensure consistent protection of know-how and trade secrets on European level: in fact, irrespective of article 39 of the TRIPs Agreement, Italy was the only EU member having a domestic definition and a specific protection of trade secrets and no EU law has been passed governing their unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure. This factor weakened the ability of several countries to protect one of the most prominent intangible assets for industry 4.0 and next-generation innovative businesses.

Amid this European scenario, Italy maintained a privileged position vis-à-vis most of the other Member States, since provisions for specific protection of business know-how and confidential information had already been laid down under articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property. This is why Italian lawmakers intervened in articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property to merely replace the former language “business information and expertise” with the notion of “trade secrets”, while basically leaving the protections envisaged in article 98 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property unchanged to its earlier version, which was already in line with the EU rules.

Apart from this, the legislative decree supplemented the applicable rules and improved the standards of protection of trade secrets, pursuant to EU Directive no. 2016/943, to enable judicial decisions in protection of trade secrets to be weighed against, inter alia, the significance of such information, its importance for the claimant, and the precautionary measures implemented by the owner thereof.

In the first instance, paragraph 1-bis of article 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property has been introduced to take negligent behaviours into consideration on the matters of infringement of trade secrets, so that the acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets may be held unlawful even when, at the time of the challenged circumstances, the individual was, or should have been, aware, as the case may be, that the trade secrets had been directly or indirectly obtained by the party that unlawfully used or disclosed them.

Quite the reverse, article 9, paragraph I, of the Directive has been fully implemented in article 121-ter on the preservation of confidentiality of trade secrets in the course of legal proceedings, irrespective of these being for precautionary measures or on the merits of the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of such trade secrets. According to such new provision of law, any (ordinary, civil or criminal, administrative or accounting) court of law will be entitled to prevent the counterparties, their representatives and advisors, legal counsels, clerical staff, witnesses, any court-appointed or delegated experts, and any other persons having access to the decisions, briefs and documents included in the court file, from using or disclosing the trade secrets discussed in the proceedings that the court may classify as confidential. In addition, it is expressly provided that such a prohibition shall maintain full force and effect after the conclusion of the proceedings in which scope it was imposed, while vice versa its effectiveness will be forfeited (i) in the event that the lack of the requirements set out in article 98 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property in order to have a valid trade secret is assessed by ruling, or (ii) where the trade secrets fall in the public domain or become easily accessible to industry players and experts.

Furthermore, in the same article specific measures were laid down for the preservation of confidentiality of trade secrets in the course of legal proceedings: hence, subject to compliance with the principles of fair trial, the judge will be entitled to adopt the most appropriate measures to preserve the confidentiality of the trade secrets discussed in the trial. Besides, the article explicitly sets forth two of the measures available to the judge: i.e., restricting access to hearings, briefs and documents included in the court file; and ordering the clerks to conceal the specific parts containing the trade secrets from the documents filed in the proceeding. However, because policymakers did not deem it appropriate to enable the judicial authorities to impose such prohibitions and measures by operation of law, they preferred leaving any request in this respect to the parties’ initiative, owed to the apparent high technical expertise required to appraise the confidential nature of such trade secrets.

With a view to ensuring a more accurate and effective preservation of trade secrets, criteria have been laid down (in article 124, paragraph 6-bis, of the Italian Code of Industrial Property), which the Judge will be bound to uphold when establishing the remedies and civil sanctions – and assessing whether these are suitable – in the proceedings on the matters of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets under article 98. For this purpose, the Court is required to take into consideration the material circumstances of the case at issue, among which:

  • the value and other specific features of the trade secrets;
  • the measures implemented by the legal holder to protect the trade secrets;
  • the actions carried out by the infringer to acquire, use or disclose the trade secrets;
  • the impact of the unlawful use or disclosure of the trade secrets;
  • the parties’ legitimate interest, and how this may be affected by the endorsement or rejection of the judge’s measures;
  • the legitimate interest of third parties;
  • the interests of the general public; and
  • the need to ensure protection of the fundamental rights.

Not only will the Judge be bound to take these circumstances into consideration in the course of the proceedings on the merits, but also upon issuance of the precautionary measures sought by the trade secrets holder, and upon appraisal of their suitability, based on the explicit warning contained in new paragraph 5-ter of article 132 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property. Consequently, the Judge will issue a preliminary injunction or another interim measure only if the requesting company proved having adopted all the necessary measures and internal protocols to keep a given trade secret confidential.

According to new paragraph 5-bis of article 132 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property all proceedings aimed at seeking protective measures for trade secrets, as an alternative to the application of the precautionary measures, the judge may authorise the defendant to continue to use the trade secrets, subject to providing an appropriate security for compensation of any damages suffered by their legitimate holder, in any event, without prejudice to the prohibition to disclose the trade secrets authorised for use.

The precautionary measures adopted in protection of the trade secrets may be forfeited either for failure to commence the proceedings on the merits within the mandatory deadline (set out in article 132, paragraph 2, of the Italian Code of Industrial Property), or as a result of the claimant’s actions or omissions. Where the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secrets are subsequently found to be groundless, the claimant will be sentenced to repay the damages caused by the adopted measures.

As a further novelty, Legislative Decree no. 63/2018 introduced a compensation, payable as an alternative to the application of the measures under article 124 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property, which may be granted upon the interested party’s application, provided that all of the following requirements laid down by new paragraph 6-ter of article 124 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property are met: at the time of the use or disclosure, the claimant was not, nor should have been, aware that the trade secrets had been obtained by the third party unlawfully using or disclosing them; the execution of these measures would be unduly burdensome for the claimant; the compensation is commensurate to the damages suffered by the party seeking the application of relieving measures and, in any event, it does not exceed the amount that would have been paid on account of royalties for the use of the trade secrets throughout the challenged period of time.

A statute of limitations has been established in 5 (five) years for rights and actions connected with such misconducts.

As a final provision, in line with the availability of progressive measures and enhanced accuracy and effectiveness of trade secrets protections, which are the EU Directive basic principles, a list of the items is provided which the judge ought to appraise to order the publication of his ruling, and to weigh the suitability of the claimed measures: the value of the trade secrets; the actions carried out by the infringer to acquire, use or disclose the trade secrets; the consequences of the use or disclosure of the trade secrets; the risk of the infringer carrying on with the unlawful use or disclosure of the trade secrets.

Furthermore, to make the above appraisal the Judge shall also consider whether, based on the available information, a natural person may be identified as the actual infringer and, in the affirmative, whether the publication of such information is justified in the light of any potential damages that may be caused to the infringer’s private life and reputation.

In conclusion, articles 388 (wilful failure to enforce a court decision) and 623 of the Italian Criminal Code (disclosure of trade or science secrets) have been amended to improve the criminal reliefs granted under the Italian legal system, so as to include breach of trade secrets, and the measures connected therewith, among the misconducts sanctioned under the above provisions.

All that considered, a new approach in adopting internal rules and compliance’s procedures is required to companies and trade secrets owners in order to protect their confidential information and to safeguard their judicial protection and new language shall be adopted in drafting non-disclosure agreements: as a matter of fact NDAs were in the past very often merely copied and/or downloaded from the web without any juridical care and the due attention.

“Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called „Influencer Marketing“, the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

The answer would be very simple.

It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

The application of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), in force since 25 May 2018, will oblige companies to deal with issues concerning IT security and liability for collection and storage of personal data, without the possibility of any further hesitation. Privacy protection will become an important part of corporate culture and will have to be necessarily managed from the top levels, i.e. the managing director as well as the management team. Employees will also be involved in this awareness process through adequate training on such matter. Companies should set forth order and priorities of some data-related procedures, in accordance with privacy by design and privacy by default principles. In other words, such companies should ensure data protection from the onset of the product phase or service ideation and design, opting for behaviors that are aimed to prevent possible issues affecting personal data.

An even wider definition of personal data

The concept of “personal data” refers to all the information that identifies or makes a person identifiable and provides details related to his/her features, habits, life-style, personal relationships, health and economic conditions. Also, the definition of “personal data” becomes even wider and more well-structured when considering electronic communications with new technologies including geolocation bearing significant weight.

This transition, certainly problematic, introduces new challenges and opportunities, and highlights the question of data protection as a fundamental human right at the center of the international debate and digital policies. This results in a significant turning point. In fact, digitalization has caused several information security issues, which until a few years ago could be handled by national authorities in each single EU country, and now require a more focused and structured legal framework. The induction of platforms such as SaaS (Software as a Service) and the cloud computing growth have completely changed the scenario.

Therefore, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) positively dealt with the request to reform the legal framework on personal data protection in 2011, since the existing legislation was no longer appropriate.

Even though it is way too early to predict the impact of such privacy regulation, we believe that it is interesting to focus on certain general considerations and some of the GDPR’s outcomes in the international scenario.

The potential applicability of the GDPR worldwide

Certainly, one of the important changes brought about by the GDPR is its potential applicability worldwide: the regulation thus overcomes European borders in the name of personal data protection.

Such regulation, in fact, not only applies to all cases where data are handled by EU based companies, but in all cases where a company, even though not EU based, also deals with EU based individuals’ personal data, within the scope to offer them goods or services or to monitor their behavior in the EU.

Consequently, in the light of the above, all foreign companies still pursuing to offer and provide their services to EU-citizens cannot avoid complying with the GDPR.

Furthermore, even UK organizations may be forced to comply with the regulation to protect UK citizens’ personal data and maintain their competitiveness in the EU market, for reasons of opportunity and convenience, apart from compulsoriness as above described and, in any case, for as long as Brexit does not materialize.

The lack of connection with the data location

The regulation not only limits foreign companies that deal with EU citizens’ personal data, but also aims to govern all the processing of personal data, irrespective of the place where such data are located. It therefore provides that all the personal data processing made by EU based companies will be subject to the GDPR, regardless of the fact whether such processing is carried out within or outside the EU.

From a legal point of view, such data will be in the spotlight and subjected to this new regulation rather than to national laws. This means that the physical position loses relevance before the aim to grant interested individuals with a greater control on the information that is collected, processed and used by third parties.

For sure companies may stop their business with EU citizens in order to avoid compliance with the GDPR principles, but such choice should be correctly made: i.e. the GDPR’s application should be taken into account when a company provides a web service which is available also to EU citizens.

The disposition of strict fines

The fines for companies that are not in compliance with such regulation can amount to up to 4% of their global revenue and up to Euro 20 million. The relevance of such measures drew attention of all the parties, particularly in the US where organizations have a strong presence in the EU. Furthermore, the GDPR applies to organizations of any dimension and to both individual enterprises as well as large companies.

The forward-looking companies started to set forth their compliance programs immediately after the EU regulation announcement, but this appears complex and as a result meeting the set deadline called for 25 May could be difficult.

According to PwC’s reports, 9% of US companies declare to have allocated more than 10 million dollars with the aim to obtain such compliance.

Some compliance requirements for companies

  • Accountability principle: data processing needs to be carried out by recorded procedures, regardless of the fact that such procedures will be managed by the companies or by third parties on their behalf. Doing so will make the data controller responsible and oblige him to be compliant with the GDPR.
  • Risk based approach: the driving force of such a regulation is the aim to make companies responsible, which are therefore asked to comply with the GDPR principles by adopting a new risk based approach and risks assessment.
  • Clear and concise consent: much attention is paid to the consent of personal data processing, which should be clear, concise, distinguishable and unequivocal.
  • Data protection by design and by default: privacy management and implementation executed by means of default settings since the design phase; it means that companies should take into account the personal data protection, from the beginning a product, service or app is designed and developed.
  • Right to be forgotten: individuals are entitled to obtain, without delay, that their data is deleted by the data controller when certain conditions- provided by the GDPR -are met, such as for example when data become redundant and no longer necessary, or regarding the aims for which data have been collected or in the event when the individual’s consent is withdrawn.
  • Right to data portability: individuals are entitled to receive their personal data in a frequently-used, well-structured and machine-readable format, so as to transfer such data to another data controller, excluding any possible encumbrance by the former data controller.
  • Appointment of an EU Representative: the Representative should act on behalf of the data controller or the data processor and may be questioned by any surveillance Authority.

How to make the transition process easier?

The EU regulation relating to personal data protection requires a strong legal formation and, at the same time, tremendous technical implementation skills on the basis of the ongoing digitalization processes and use of even more innovative and complex technologies.

In such regard, companies may rely on professionals who are able to provide multidisciplinary services and consultancy, not only of a legal and IT nature, but who can exchange and implement synergies between professionals and business workers such as engineers and mathematicians.

Consequently, this burdensome commitment to follow the GDPR together with the obligation to comply with the law shall also enable companies to combine the aforesaid skills and join forces to commence a transition process that will ensure and ultimately result in growth.

The author of this post is Giorgio Piccolotto

According to Italian Copyright Law and to different European countries legislations, advertising creations and campaigns are not protected by copyright.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Italian Copyright Law list many copyrighted works but do not include advertising claims and creations, even through a broad legal interpretation.

The Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Code (Codice di Autodisciplina della Comunicazione Commerciale, hereinafter the “Code”) and the Italian Self-Regulatory Jury (hereinafter, the “Jury”) should overcome such legal gap.

Article 13 of the Code provides the following:

“Art. 13 – Imitation, Confusion and Exploitation

Marketing communication should not copy or slavishly imitate that of others even if it concerns non-competitive products, especially if there is the risk of generating confusion with the marketing communication of others.

Moreover, any exploitation of the name, trademark, notoriety and corporate image of other marketers should be avoided, if it is intended to generate an undue advantage.”

According to the Jury case law, which often applied art. 13 of the Code, it is clear that there are two requirements for and advertising in order to obtain a legal protection: novelty and originality.

It is new an idea which has never been used or it is not in the consumers’ memory.

It is original an idea which consists in a significant creative effort.

Advertising campaigns that use stereotypes are not original, thus they are not protected by law: e.g. the idea consisting in a side-by-side comparison of two dishes in order to show a detergent effectiveness.

Another principle consists in the balance between originality and protection against imitation: the more an advertising is original (id est, it is not descriptive of the advertised product), the more it is protected against similar advertisings.

Art. 13 of the Code protects both the “heart” (the idea) of an advertising campaign and the form: so, if an advertising has a different heart and an identical claim or form compared to a previous one, it infringes art. 13 of the Code.

The Jury case law stated over the years a fundamental principle: when there is an identical copy of an idea or a claim of a third party (particularly if by a competitor), the originality degree required by the first advertising in order to obtain a legal protection is almost null.

Even simple and ordinary ideas can be protected under art. 13 of the Code if they are slavishly imitated, particularly by a competitor which sells product of the same category.

The Jury, in its decision n. 5/2018, seems to have changed its orientation on the matter, especially concerning the requirements of novelty and relevant imitation.

The decision concerned two competitors in the fruit and vegetable sectors: La Linea Verde (owner of the trademark “Dimmidisì” (say yes to me) and manufacturer of product labelled by such mark) and Del Monte.

La Linea Verde started to use the claim “Tutti dicono di sì” (all say yes) at the beginning of 2017 in various online and paper campaigns and in a trade fair.

After a few months (October 2017) Del Monte started to use the claim “Tutti dicono sì” (all say yes – with a slightly different wording) in its advertising campaigns.

Thus, La Linea Verde sent to Del Monte a cease and desist letter and later filed a complaint before the Jury claiming the infringement of art. 13 of the Code.

In the decision, the Jury:

  1. after stating that the claims “Tutti dicono di sì” e “Tutti dicono sì” are identical, both by the form (the word “di” is not relevant) and by the content, because both the claims suggest adhesion to the products by the consumer;
  2. after stating that La Linea Verde has a prior use of the claim and stating that the publishing of the claim on the web and on a trade fair, even if not reported on an advertising search engine (like Easy Way), are appropriate in order to prove the prior use of a claim;
  • after stating that the claim has never been used in that market and in different markets in the past decade;

the Jury eventually stated that Del Monte slogan has to be considered “a logical development of an advertising idea that Del Monte, undeniably, has been proposed for a long time”, referring to the ’80s and ’90s popular advertising “L’uomo Del Monte ha detto sì” and to the less popular “Sì al meglio, sì a Del Monte”.

The Jury stated that, even if there is a formal overlapping between the claims, the advertisings have their own aspects and they cannot be overlapped in the consumer’s perception (and, in my opinion, this is contradictory, because the Jury previously recognized in the same decision that the claims had the same meaning: suggesting the adhesion to the products by the consumer).

It seems this is a change of course by the Jury concerning claim imitation and likelihood of confusion (art. 13). The Jury stated that it is possible to use two identical (form and content) claims, both original, because there is “a logical development” between an expression (“Tutti dicono sì”) and a communicative path (“to say yes” by Del Monte).

It is a change of course that, in the future, may create some problems to creative directors and lawyers: it will not be sufficient to monitor if a claim has been already used by third parties, but it will be necessary to check if an advertising is “a logical development” of a different communication by a third party. This would result in a subjective judgment which affects the fundamental legal certainty principle.

The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

The fourth Industrial Revolution, currently experienced by global economy, displays a melting-pot of a wide range of new technologies combined one another, impacting on every aspect of economy, industry and society by progressively blurring the borders of the physical, digital and biological spheres.

The growth of robotics, of artificial and virtual intelligence, of connectivity among objects and of the latter with humans, is contributing to strengthening the virtual side of economy, made of its intangible assets. Even trade is tending more and more towards a trade of intellectual property rights rather than trade of physical objects.

In such a scenario, protection of intellectual property is becoming increasingly important: the value of innovation embedded in any product is likely to increase as compared to the value of the physical object itself. In other words, protection of intellectual property could significantly affect economic growth and trade and shall necessarily go forward as the economy becomes more and more virtual.

Future growth of the 4.0 economy depends on maintaining policies that, on one hand allow connectivity among millions of objects and, on the other, provide for strong patent protection mechanisms, thus, encouraging large and risky investments in technology innovation.

Are SMEs, which represent the beating heart of the Italian economy, ready for all this? Has Italy adopted any policy aimed at boosting innovation and the relevant protection for SMEs?

After more than four years since the launch of the Startup Act (Decree Law No 179 of 18 October 2012), Italian legislation confirms being among the most internationally advanced programs for innovative business support strategies. If we look at the Start Up Manifesto Policy Tracker Startup Manifesto Policy Tracker (a manifesto for entrepreneurship and innovation to power growth in the European Union), published in March 2016, Italy is in second place among the 28 EU Member States, in terms of the take up rate of recommendations made by the European Commission on the innovative entrepreneurship issue.

The Annual Report to Parliament on the implementation of legislation in support of innovative startups and SMEs (Edition 2016) confirms the results of the Startup Manifesto Policy Tracker: Italian ecosystem has grown in terms of number of startups recorded (+41% on the previous year), of human resources involved (+47,5%), of average value of production (+33%) and, finally, of funding raising (+128%, considering access to credit via the SME Guarantee Fund).

This growth is the outcome of both the inventiveness and the attention to innovation that have always characterized Italian entrepreneurs as well as of the progress made by Italian legislation over the past years: changes were introduced in order to boost the national system for business startups and, in some cases, to promote innovative entrepreneurship as a whole.

Adopted measures include, for example: the implementing Ministerial decrees on tax credits for R&D investments; the ITA Service Card for innovative SMEs, the multimedia, bilingual online platform #ItalyFrontiers (the aim of which is to promote capital investment and encourage open innovation projects involving innovative Italian businesses); Italia Startup Visa and Italia Startup Hub (the renewal, under the 2016 Decree on Immigration Flows, of a preferential procedure for the granting of visas and the conversion of permits to stay for self-employed for non-EU citizens wanting to move to Italy or remain there to start up an innovative enterprise); the launch of a new simplified online company incorporation procedure that enables innovative startups to be opened as limited liability companies, granting significant time and cost reductions; the extension (until 2016) and the reinforcement of fiscal incentives available for investment in innovative startups; finally, the extension of the free, simplified access to the Guarantee Fund to include innovative SMEs in order to make it easier for them to obtain credit.

The importance of Intellectual Property in the modern economy

A national policy that has a target of incentivizing the use of Intellectual Property is a policy that will have beneficial effects on the entire national (and international) economy.

Proof of this, are the results of the studies carried out by the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights and the European Patent Office (EPO) on the contribution of intellectual property rights (IPR) on the EU economy.

The study analyzed the effects of intellectual property on the EU in terms of gross domestic production, occupation, wages and trade. Here are some of the most interesting data:

– 42% of the total economic activity in the EU (approximately EUR 5.7 trillion) and 38% of occupation (approximately 82 million workplaces) is attributable to IPR-intensive industries;

– IPR-intensive industries pay significantly higher wages than other industries, with a wage premium of 46%;

– IPR-intensive industries tend to be more resilient against the economic crisis;

– IPR-intensive industries account for about 90% of EU trade with the rest of the world, generating a trade surplus for the EU of EUR 96 billion;

– about 40% of large companies own IPRs.

The data gathered by this study should raise social and political awareness as to the importance of stimulating not only large companies, SMEs and startups in general, but also those, which use intellectual property.

The innovation criteria

An interesting measure that is showing good results in relation to the dissemination of IPR companies in Italy is the introduction, thanks to the Startup Act, of the concept of innovative startup.

The Startup Act provides facilitating measures (e.g.: incorporation and following statutory modifications by means of a standard model with digital signature, cuts to red tape and fees, flexible corporate management, extension of terms for covering losses, exemption from regulations on dummy companies, exemption from the duty to affix the compliance visa for compensation of VAT credit) applicable to companies which have, as well as other requirements, at least one of the following requirements:

– at least 15% of the company’s expenses can be attributed to R&D activities;

– at least 1/3 of the total workforce are PhD students, the holders of a PhD or researchers; or, alternatively, 2/3 of the total workforce must hold a Master’s degree;

– the enterprise is the holder, depositary or licensee of a registered patent (industrial property), or the owner and author of a registered software.

The Startup Act is still having positive effects on the startups demographic trends. As a matter of fact, during the first six months of 2016 there has been a growth rate of 15,5% in the number of registered companies.

The success of the Startup Act brought the Italian legislator to extend with the Investment Compact (Decree Law No 3 of 24 January 2015)  most of the benefits provided for innovative startups also to innovative SMEs.

By the Investment Compact the Italian Government recognized that innovative startups and innovative SMEs represent two sequential stages of the same continuous and coherent growth path. In a context as the Italian one, dominated by SMEs, it is fundamental to strengthen this kind of enterprises.

The measures in question apply only to SMEs, as defined by the European Commission Recommendation 361/2003 (companies with less than 250 employees and with a total turnover that does not exceed € 43 million), which have, as well as other requirements, at least two of the following requirements:

– at least 3% of either the company’s expenses or its turnover (the largest value is considered) can be attributed to R&D activities;

– at least 1/5 of the total workforce are PhD students, PhD holders or researchers; alternatively, 1/3 of the total workforce must hold a Master’s degree;

– the enterprise is the holder, depositary or licensee of a registered patent (industrial property) or the owner of a program for original registered computers.

Unfortunately to this day the Investment Compact has not produced the expected results: on one hand, there is a problem connected to the not well-defined concept of “innovative SMEs”, differently from what happened with startups; on the other hand, there are structural shortcomings in the communication of government incentives: these communication issues are particularly significant if we consider that the policy on innovative SMEs is a series of self-selecting, non-automatic incentives.

Patent Box

Another important measure related to the IP exploitation is the Patent Box, the optional tax rule applicable to income derived from the exploitation of intellectual property rights.

The Patent Box rules were introduced by the 2015 Stability Act and give to businesses, from 2015 onwards, the option of tax-exempting up to 50% of the income derived from the commercial exploitation of software protected by copyright, industrial patents for inventions, utility models and complementary protection certificates, designs, models, company information and technical/industrial know-how, provided that they can be protected as secret information according to the Italian Code of Industrial Property: meaning patented intangibles or assets that have been registered and are awaiting a patent.

Originally, also the exploitation of trademarks allowed entrepreneurs to choose the Patent Box optional tax rule, but a very recent Decree  erased that provision by excluding trademarks from the Patent Box regime. This exclusion has just been introduced in order to align the Italian Patent Box to the prescriptions of the Organization for Economy Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Said policy has a dual purpose: on one hand, it seeks to encourage Italian entrepreneurs to develop, protect and use intellectual property; on the other hand, it intends to make the Italian market more attractive for national and foreign long-term investment, while protecting the Italian tax base. The incentive encourages the placement, and preservation in Italy, of intangibles that are currently held abroad by Italian or foreign companies and also fosters investments in R&D.

The Patent Box is certainly of great importance for Italian economy and has relevant merits, but it can be further improved. During the convention held on the 8th of May 2017 in Milan entitled “Fiscal levers for business development: the patent box example”, organized by Indicam, the institute for fight against counterfeiting established by Centromarca, it was highlighted that one aspect to improve is that of the Patent Box’s appeal to SMEs: there is a need for this policy, which was thought mainly for large companies, to be really effective. One solution, proposed by the Vice-Minister of Finance and Economy Luigi Casero, guest of the convention, is to «introduce some statistical clusters, a kind of sector studies, an intervention of analysis and evaluation of the fiscal indicators of a specific type of company».

UPC

The last matter that deserves to be mentioned is that of the Unified Patent Court: Italy has ratified the United Patent Court Agreement on the 10th of February 2017.

As it is known, in order to start its operations the Unified Patent Court needs the ratification also of United Kingdom. Moreover, one of UPC central division should be located in London in addition to the ones in Paris, Munich. After Brexit this maintaining of the London Court appears inappropriate both under a juridical and an EU opportunistic point of view.

As provided for the UPC Convention a section of the central division should be in Italy because it is the fourth EU member state (after France, Germany and the UK) as to the number of validated European patents in its territory: the London Court should be therefore relocated to Milan.

Moreover Italy is one of the main countries in the EU applying for not only European patents but also trademarks and designs (and so contributes substantial fees) yet it does not host any European IP institutions.

An Italian section of the UPC would certainly bring a higher awareness, also of smaller enterprises, in relation to the importance of IP protection.

Conclusion

A disruptive and unprecedented transformation is taking place, involving industry, economy and society, with its main whose main driver being the relentless ascent of its intangible component.

What we have to do, as a society, is follow this transformation by changing our way of thinking and working, abandoning the old paradigms of the analogic era.

Policy measures as the Startup Act, the Investment Compact and the Patent Box are surely important initial steps that are bringing certain positive effects, but they are not enough and they have not yet achieved the maximum results.

As pointed out by the #StartupSurvey, the first national statistical survey of innovative startups, launched by the Italian National Institute of Statistics and the Ministry of Economic Development (the data were gathered by a mass mailing to all the innovative startups listed in the special section on 31 December 2015), the majority of Italian startups and SMEs (52,3%) have not adopted any formal mechanism, as the ownership of an industrial patent, to protect their innovation. Only 16,1% of the respondents owned a patent and only 11,8% owned a registered software.

Among the reasons that bring startups to not adopt protection mechanisms, the majority of the entrepreneurs (48,4%) claimed to be convinced that the innovation of their enterprise could not be taken away by third parties. On the other hand, a considerable number (25,5%) said that they were not aware of the necessary strategies.

The data gathered by the survey confirm that there is a communication and information issue, as noted in the paragraph above, to be solved.

An interesting initiative relating to this problem is the new questionnaire realized by the Head Office for the fight against counterfeiting of the Ministry of Economic Development. This new and free service has been conceived, in particular, for startups and SMEs, allowing them to carry out an online self-assessment in relation to intellectual property.

The aim of the questionnaire is to make the enterprises aware of their intellectual property range and to direct them towards the adoption of appropriate strategies for the valorization of their intangible assets.

Mattia Dalla Costa

Tätigkeitsgebiete

  • Unternehmen
  • e-Commerce
  • Franchising
  • geistiges Eigentum
  • Warenzeichen und Patente
Kontakt Mattia

Schreiben Sie an Mattia





    Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Influencer Marketing project

    28 Mai 2018

    • Italien
    • Verträge
    • Medien

    Over the last year, the escalation of cryptocurrencies has aroused a number of issues and controversial debates for the lack of regulation in most jurisdictions, including Italy where the only regulation of the cryptocurrency phenomenon is set by the AML legislation. According to the Italian law, cryptocurrencies do not have legal tender status, the regulators have qualified cryptocurrencies as means of exchange different from e-money, which, however, can be converted into Euro for purchasing virtual currency as for selling such currency; moreover, they can be used to buy both virtual and real goods and services. As a matter of fact, the lack of regulation concerning cryptocurrencies as a form of currency and a financial instrument does not prevent the trade and use of cryptocurrencies not only as means of payment but also as contribution to fund the share capital of limited liability companies.

    On July, 18th, the Court of Brescia has denied the validity of a resolution increasing the share capital of a limited liability company subscribed for by certain utility tokens because the relevant contribution (equal to Euro 714,000) didn’t comply with Article 2464 of the Civil Code. The Court has not banned the contribution of cryptocurrencies but based on that case it has remarked the criteria governing contributions in kind which were not met for the subscription of the increase of share capital as resolved by the company; giving that, and starting from this assumption, it is possible to highlight criteria requested by the Italian law to contribute cryptocurrencies into share capital.

    Any (tangible and intangible) asset can be contributed into the share capital of joint-stock companies (S.p.A.) and limited liability companies (S.r.l.) to the extent that they have an indisputable economic value (as proved by a sworn appraisal from an expert who issues the relevant report) and a potential market where they can be exchanged and/or converted into cash. The report must be focused on the description of the contributed assets, the reference of the adopted criteria of evaluation, and the certification that their value is, at least, equal to the one assigned at the moment of the subscription of the capital and of the premium, if any. As a matter of fact, the function of the share capital is to guarantee the creditors in relation to the company liabilities, as a consequence it is mandatory that the economic value of the share capital must be indisputable and in compliance with the law, especially when including cryptocurrencies or digital assets.

    Moving on the case, the cryptocurrencies contributed were issued by a company based in Bulgaria, they were utility tokens used as mean of payment for buying goods and services on a web platform, owned by the issuers of these digital assets. Hence these tokens were not traded in any exchange platform where it is possible to fix an indisputable exchange rate and then the relevant economic value. Indeed, the Court has reasoned the direct proportion between the value of the contribution into the equity and the existence of exchanges where the value of the cryptocurrency would have been set. Moreover, the Court has stated the lack of enforceability of the tokens contributed. Under the practical side, the contribution of cryptocurrencies has to be made by reporting the private key from the contributor to the company, giving that the enforceability of cryptocurrencies by a pledge can be done subject to the collaboration and the consent of the contributor who has to disclose the private key; should the contributor refuse to disclose the private key, the enforceability of the pledge on the tokens would be undermined.

    To sum up, in theory the contribution of cryptocurrencies into equity is not forbidden under the Italian law, however giving its questionable nature, it is still controversial how to guarantee the compliance with the mandatory requirements for the contribution in kind.

    This case history and the order of the Court of Brescia give us the opportunity to provide the Italian picture on cryptocurrencies.

    The Italian crypto-scenario is quite effervescent since the beginning of 2017; indeed, Italy was the first European country to define the virtual currency and the exchanger according to the new AML legislation. This is not strange considering that the anonymity surrounding cryptocurrencies, which varies from complete anonymity to pseudo-anonymity, prevents cryptocurrency transactions from being adequately monitored, allowing shady transactions to occur outside of the regulatory perimeter and criminal organisations to use cryptocurrencies to obtain easy access to „clean cash“. Anonymity is also the major issue when it comes to tax evasion.

    The AML Law

    Legislative Decree no. 90 of May 25th 2017, which reformed legislative decree no. 231/2007, introduced definitions of exchanges and virtual currencies and provided a set of rules for the exchanges to comply with the anti-money laundering rules.

    Virtual currency means “a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, nor attached to a legally established fiat currency, which can be used as a means of exchange for the purchase of goods and services and transferred, stored and traded electronically.” Virtual currencies within the scope of AMLD5 and of the Italian AML Law are those that can be transferred, stored and traded electronically. Until now, other virtual currency schemes are not in scope, including virtual currencies used to attain goods and services without requiring exchange into legal tender or similar instruments, or the use of a custodian wallet provider.

    Exchanges are defined as virtual service providers: “any natural or legal person providing professional services to third parties for the use, the exchange, the related storage of virtual currencies and for the conversion from or in currencies having legal tender [.]” Given this scope, they are subject to anti-money laundering regulations and, therefore, they have to obtain a sort of licence and be listed in a special register to operate in Italy. Considering this definition, it seems that a material number of key players are not included in AML law, for example miners and pure cryptocurrency exchanges that are not custodian wallet providers, hardware and software wallet providers, trading platforms and coin offerors. This choice of the legislator leaves blind spots in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion. However, a decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is under discussion, which seeks to extend the monitoring not only to exchanges but also to those subjects that accept cryptocurrencies for the sale of services and goods.

    As said, apart from the AML Law, there is a lack of regulation which undermines the grade of protection of users and investors.

    The protection of users/investors

    One of the issues which prevents or undermines the grade of the protection is that crypto markets and crypto players can be located in jurisdictions that do not have effective money laundering and terrorist financing controls in place or do not have any regulation for their offering to the investors. Moreover, against the risk of default of the platform or the exchanges there is very little to do to protect investors especially at a cross-border level.

    The protection of users/investors depends on several factors, the first one being the nature of the cryptocurrencies in question and the crypto-platforms (i.e. what they are, where they are based and whether they are compliant with the Italian law).

    The nature of the cryptocurrencies has to be identified on a case-by-case basis. If qualified as securities (standard financial products which are transferable and generate profits), the prospectus rules should apply, this meaning that a prospectus is required under the Consolidated Financial Law (“Testo Unico Finanza” or “TUF”) to disclose significant financial risks to investors. If they are a hybrid made up of a means of payment and an investment component, the application of the TUF provisions is controversial.

    From a criminal perspective, users/investors can be protected in case of fraud irrespective of the above factors. The general remedies under the criminal law apply.

    The landmarks for investors’ protection are:

    • The AML Law defining the subjects obliged to declare their activities in the cryptocurrencies world (e. the custodian wallet providers and the virtual currency exchanges);
    • The TUF rules, inter alia, the prospectus regulation; and
    • The Consumers’ Code rules the mandatory provisions on the „form and pre-contractual information“.

    The common ground of civil actions is the disclosure of pre-contractual information to investors and the compliance of crypto-platforms and exchanges with the Italian law.

    Civil actions might be brought against platforms:

    • Pursuant to Articles 50 and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, according to which any contract must provide consumers with mandatory „pre-contractual information“.
    • Pursuant to Article 23 of the TUF, according to which any contract providing investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

    In 2017, the Court of Verona declared a contract null and void because of its breach of the mandatory provisions on the „form and pre-contractual information“ and ordered the refund of the money to the consumer. From the consumers’ perspective, all the information about the nature, the risks and the features of any cryptocurrency must be provided in advance to individuals in a transparent manner. As a matter of fact, the Court of Verona has reasoned that any online agreement between parties, implying the exchange of real money for virtual money, represents a financial service or rather “a paid service.” The Court judged that the contract between the exchange and the Italian consumer was null and void, as the IT service firm breached the obligations set forth by Articles 50 on „distance contracts“ and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, which provide as mandatory the „form and pre-contractual information“ to be provided to consumers. Lastly, the Court ordered to return to the Italian plaintiff the amount invested in cryptocurrencies.

    For the sake of completeness, the consumers’ protection has been achieved also by the Italian Antitrust Authority (i.e. the non-governmental organization focused on consumer protection), which stopped the operations of several affiliates of OneCoin, the digital currency investment scheme widely accused of fraud.

    In 2017, Consob (National Authority for the Stock Exchange) banned the advertisement and then the offer of investment portfolios containing cryptocurrencies, made in breach of the prospectus regulation.

    Pursuant to Article 101, Par. 4, Part c) of the TUF, Consob has prohibited the advertising – via the website www.coinspace1.com – of the public offer for ‘cryptocurrency extraction packages’ launched by Coinspace Ltd (Resolution no. 19968 of April 20th 2017). The offer had already been the subject of a precautionary 90-day suspension. Moreover, on December 6th, 2017, pursuant to resolution no. 20207, under Article 99, paragraph 1, letter d) of the TUF, Consob banned the offer to the Italian public of „investment portfolios“ carried out without the required authorizations by Cryp Trade Capital through the website https://cryp.trade. A few months later, in March 2018, the website https://cryp.trade was subjected to precautionary seizure by the Criminal Court of Rome pursuant to Article 166 of the TUF (a criminal provision which punishes those who carry out financial services and activities without Consob’s authorization). The common ground of these resolutions issued by Consob is the absolute lack of the mandatory information and prospectus set forth by the TUF for entities providing financial services to Italian investors trading in cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-related products. Given the application of the TUF, pursuant to Article 23, any contracts for the provision of investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

    Both resolutions have remarked how the Italian versions of the websites were the evidence that those offers were targeted to the Italian market, therefore Consob has set the criteria to identify the territoriality of the crypto-platforms subject to the Italian law which is: “where the cryptocurrencies are intended to be offered to the public”.

    To complete this overview, some highlights follow on ICOs and the tax regime of cryptocurrencies in Italy.

    ICOs

    Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are not regulated by the Italian law. In ICOs the funding collected by a start-up could also be exchanged for an equity token (very similar to securities and then embodying an interest in the issuing start-up) or a utility token, which entitles the holder to exchange it for goods or services provided by the same start-up.

    ICOs are very controversial (even if not yet officially banned by Consob), as they issue equity tokens that, due to their similarity to securities, can be offered to the public of investors only by entities duly authorized by the regulators, according to the TUF. As far as utility tokens, in theory their issuance might be allowed subject to a strict set of contractual rules, in order to protect investors as much as possible. However, the ICOs market has not taken off, yet.

    The tax regime

    For Italian tax purposes, the taxation of cryptocurrencies is not regulated by Law. Nonetheless, the Italian Revenue Agency issued a Ruling in May 2018 providing that gains on virtual currency for individuals trading outside a business activity are treated as gains arising from the disposal of traditional foreign currency. Consequently, gains relating to forward sale are always taxable, rather gains relating to forward sale are taxable only to the extent that, during the tax period, the average amount of the overall virtual currency maintained by the taxpayer exceeds the equivalent of EUR 51,645.69 for seven days in a row (the exchange rate to use is the one given by the website where the individual carried out the transaction). Any gain is therefore subject to 26% withholding tax. Additionally, the taxpayer must comply with the tax monitoring duties in the Individual Tax Return though he is not exempted from wealth tax (IVAFE), to the extent that virtual currency is not held through institutions or other authorized intermediaries by the Bank of Italy.

    The same regulatory uncertainty put on the taxation of corporations trading in virtual currency. In a Ruling issued in September 2018, the authorities submitted that exchanges of bitcoins for legal currency constitute, for income tax purposes, a taxable event subject to Ires (24%) and Irap (3.9%).

    For indirect tax purposes, the authorities confirmed that trading in bitcoins and other virtual currencies is similar to the activity of an intermediary negotiating in financial instruments, and, as a consequence, it is exempt from VAT under the Italian provision implementing article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive (2006/112). Therefore, when bitcoins are exchanged for real currencies, no VAT is due on the value of the bitcoins themselves.

    The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

    It is often the case – in practice – that an ongoing commercial relationship builds slowly over time through a series of sales agreements, without the parties ever signing an actual distribution agreement to set down their respective rights and responsibilities.

    At first blush this might appear to be a good thing: one can sidestep being bound, especially long-term, to the other party. But on closer scrutiny the solution becomes problematic, especially for anyone operating internationally.

    One of the key issues that arises when an international contractual arrangement is not in writing, is identifying the court with jurisdiction over any dispute arising therefrom. In the European Union, the issue is resolved by the provisions of Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussels I recast”). Pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation, as an alternative to the defendant’s courts, jurisdiction in a contractual dispute may lie with the court in the place of performance of the obligation in question. Next to this general rule are two criteria to identify the “place of performance”, differentiated according to the type of contract at issue. For a contract for goods, it is the place of delivery for the goods; in a contract for services, it is the place where the services are provided.   

    Thus, to identify the court with jurisdiction, it is crucial that a contract fall under one of these categories: goods or services.

    No doubt this distinction is quite simple in many circumstances. In the case of a distribution agreement, or of a commercial concession agreement, the issue may become thorny.

    The European Court of Justice has analysed this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in their judgement of 8 March 2018 (Case no. C-64/17) following the request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese Court of Appeal. The parties to the action were a Portuguese distributor, a company called Lusavouga, and a Belgian company called Saey Home & Garden, that produced articles for the home and garden, including a line of products branded “Barbecook”.

    Following Saey’s decision to break off the commercial relationship – notice of which was sent in an email dated 17 July 2014 – Lusavouga brought action in Portugal seeking compensation for the unexpected termination of the agreement, and goodwill indemnity. Saey raised a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Portuguese court, citing their general conditions of sale (mentioned in their invoices) which required that a Court in Belgium be competent for dispute resolution.

    The facts thus presented two issues to be resolved in light of the Brussels I recast Regulation: deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a vendor’s general terms and conditions pursuant to Art. 25 of the Regulation shall apply, and, if not, choosing the court with jurisdiction under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

    Shall a jurisdiction clause contained within a vendor’s general terms and conditions apply to a distribution relationship?

    The supplier company apparently considered their course of dealing with the Portuguese retailer nothing more than a concatenation of individual sales of goods, governed by their general terms and conditions. Consequently, they argued that any dispute arising from the relationship should be subject to the jurisdiction clause identifying Belgium as the court with jurisdiction under those terms and conditions.

    Thus, a determination was needed on whether, under these facts, there was a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 25, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1215/2012.

    The Court of Justice has long opined that if the jurisdiction clause is included in the general contract conditions drafted by one of the parties, the contract signed by the other party must contain an express reference to those general conditions in order to ensure the real consent thereto by the parties (judgement of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani, case no. 24/76; judgement of 16 March 1999, Castelletti, case no. C-159/97; judgement of 7 July 2016, Höszig, case no. C-225/15). Moreover, to be valid, the clause must involve a particular legal relationship (judgement of 20 April 2016, Profit Investment SIM, case no. C-366/13).

    In the instant case, the referring court found it self-evident that the legal relationship at bar was a commercial concession agreement entered into for the purpose of distributing Saey products in Spain, a contract that was not evidenced in writing.

    From this perspective, it is clear that the general conditions contained in the Saey invoices could have no bearing on the commercial concession agreement: assuming Lusavouga’s consent had been proven, the selection of Belgium as the forum would have applied if anything to the individual sales agreements, but not to those duties arising from the separate distribution agreement.

    What, then, would be the court with jurisdiction for the duties arising from the commercial concession agreement?

    Absent any jurisdiction clause, the issue would be decided under Art. 7, point 1 of Regulation 1215/2012, under which it becomes imperative to establish whether a contract is for goods or for services.

    The “provision of services” has been defined by the Court of Justice as an activity, not mere omissions, undertaken in return for remuneration (judgement of 23 April 2009, Falco, case no. C-533/07).

    With the judgements in Corman Collins of 19 December 2013 (case no. C-9/12), and Granarolo of 14 July 2016 (case no. C-196/15), the Court held that in a typical distribution agreement, the dealer renders a service, in that they are involved in increasing the distribution of supplier’s product, and receives in consideration therefor a competitive advantage, access to advertising platforms, know-how, or payment facilities. In light of such elements, the contract relationship should be deemed one for services. If on the other hand the commercial relationship is limited to a concatenation of agreements, each for the purpose of a delivery and pickup of merchandise, then what we have is not a typical distribution agreement, and the contractual relationship shall be construed as one for the sale of goods.

    Once the contract has been categorised as one for services, one must then determine “the place where, under the contract, the services are provided”. The Court specifies that such location shall be understood as the member state of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract  or – as in the case at issue – the actual performance of the same. Only where it is impossible to identify such location shall the domicile of the party rendering the service be used.

    From the referring court’s description of the contractual relationship, and from the Court of Justice’s understanding of the distributor’s performance of services, it would be logical to find that the principal location for performance of services was Spain, where Lusavouga “was involved in increasing the distribution of products” of Saey.

    It is clear that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor would ever have intended such a result, and they might have avoided it being chosen for them by reducing their agreement in writing, including a jurisdiction clause therein.

    By the same token, viewed from the outside, the Portuguese judges’ apparent conviction that the situation was one of an actual dealership contract would leave ample room for debate. After all, a number of elements would lead to the opposite conclusion. However, even in terms of that aspect, the absence of a written contract left room for interpretation that might lead to unforeseen – and perhaps rather risky – consequences.

    In conclusion, the wisdom of setting down the terms and conditions of a sales distribution agreement in writing appears clear. This is not only because one can avoid those ambiguities we have described above, but also because it specifies other important clauses stipulated by the parties that should not be left to chance: exclusivity of area, if any, or with respect to specific sales channels, the contract period and termination notice, any duties to promote the product, control over end-user personal data, and the possibility of, and methods for, any online sales of products.

    The relationship between influencers and advertising is one of the most interesting topic of the recent years, and one to which many operators in the sector are devoting energy and money.

    In this article we will return to talk about the legal problems that influencer marketing makes it necessary to analyze.

    There are many problematic profiles that can arise from the activity of influencers, pursuant to a fundamental principle of advertising discipline: any form of commercial communication and/or advertising must clearly be recognizable as such.

    It is known that influencers, thanks to the reputation they have on social network, Instagram among all, are often paid to post pictures that portray them along with products given for free companies that have sponsored the post itself. The situation described can well be considered as a real advertising activity, considering that there is an individual that receive remuneration for promoting a product to the community. However, in the sponsored post there is no mention of the fact that the activity carried out by influencers is a genuine and effective advertising activity: the influencers simply post the picture and describe the product , obviously in a positive way, as if it were “a private story in the style of Instagram“ (injunction of the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute (IAP) Control Committee no. 57/2018).

    It is certainly on the basis of these considerations that, in the last two months, we have assisted to a real crackdown in the IAP, the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute (“Istituto di Auto-disciplina Pubblicitaria). The IAP Control Committee notified many influencers, as well as the companies producing the good displayed in the sponsored posts, injunctions aimed at inhibiting the publication of certain posts released by the influencers themselves.

    The common element of all these injunctions is the criticism of a behavior that showed a purely advertising activity as if it were a spontaneous choice of the influencer. This circumstance leads to a situation in which, using the words of the IAP injunction No 61/2018 of 14 June 2018, there are “communication conveying eminently promotional content of the product and the brand in question, that is however not sufficiently explicit and therefore not immediately recognisable to the public”.

    In fact, what is being contested in the above-mentioned injunctions, but also in others, such as in the injunction no. 51/2018, is the violation of art. 7 of the Italian Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Code (“Codice di auto-disciplina pubblicitaria). The code is the source of the above-mentioned principle that states that any form of commercial communication must always be recognisable as such. Furthermore, the Code says that „in the means and forms of commercial communication in which contents and information of other kinds are disseminated, commercial communication must be clearly distinguished by means of appropriate measures„.

    The measures taken by the Control Committee involve not only influencers, but also companies, as the latter actually benefit from an activity that can be considered a form of surreptitious advertising.

    Please, allow me a note.

    Take for example the injunction no. 50/2018, regarding two Instagram’s posts of the influencer Chiara Nasti, that portrayed her with products marked with the trademark „Sunsilk“: having noted that the two posts of Nasti’s Instagram profile violated the above-mentioned art. 7 of the Italian Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Code, the injunction states the essential need for  „transparency of communications„, that allows an effective distinction, and not a merely formal one, of promotional communications from any other type of communication.

    Analyzing the guidelines elaborated on this matter by the IAP, the so-called „Digital Chart“, it results that it is considered compliant for the purpose of the recognition of an advertising communication as such, that a post on Instagram or on another social network presents the hashtag #advertising, or even simply the hashtag #ad.

    In this respect, the IAP’s guidelines may leave a little baffled. In fact, while recognizing that the choice in question is an attempt to mediate between the need to protect the consumer and the activity of influencer, it is legitimate to doubt about the effectiveness of the hashtag #ad. As a matter of fact, it is reasonable to doubt that the hashtag #ad, written under a picture on a social network, is in itself suitable to make it clear to the user and to the average consumer that the post ha an advertising message. In fact, it can be assumed that many users do not know that the term „ad“ is the abbreviation for „advertising“, especially considering that the average user of influencers is represented by young people aged between 14 and 18 years. In a nutshell, the hashtag #ad would be able to “disguise” the advertising activity.

    On the other hand, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM – Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) and some German judges (and the German legal system is known to be particularly attentive to new technologies law) also reached these conclusions. In this respects, it is worth reading the Case 13 U 53/17 of the Celle Higher Regional Court, that concerns to precisely the hashtag #ad and reaches conclusions similar to those mentioned above.

    It should also be noted that, so far, it has been mentioned the Italian Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Code, a regulatory text issued by the IAP, whose injunctions or decisions bind exclusively the companies adhering to its system of self-regulation.

    However, it is clear that, in cases such as those described above, is applicable a specific Italian legislation, the so-called Consumer Code (Legislative Decree no. 206/2005 – Codice del Consumo), Furthermore, surreptitious advertising violates the prohibition of misleading and unfair commercial practices, as stated in various articles of the Consumer Code.

    The consequences are relevant, because the Consumer Code and its Implementing Regulations implicate the intervention of the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) or the Italian Regulatory Authority for Communications (Agcom – Autorità Garante per le Comunicazioni), both having sanctioning powers toward any person (with particular reference to financial sanctions).

    What arises from this brief examination is that this phenomenon is particularly interesting and widespread throughout the world.

    The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

    Last 7 June, legislative decree no.63 of 11 May 2018 implementing EU Directive no.2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on “on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure”, was published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Italy, pursuant to article 15 of Delegated Law no. 163 of 25 October 2017.

    The purpose of this act was twofold: on the one hand, it assisted in matching the already existing Italian legislation – in particular, articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property – with the new EU legislation; whilst, on the other hand, it implemented new and more effective provisions of law on the protection of trade secrets.

    The European Union introduced Directive no. 943/2016 in order to harmonize and ensure consistent protection of know-how and trade secrets on European level: in fact, irrespective of article 39 of the TRIPs Agreement, Italy was the only EU member having a domestic definition and a specific protection of trade secrets and no EU law has been passed governing their unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure. This factor weakened the ability of several countries to protect one of the most prominent intangible assets for industry 4.0 and next-generation innovative businesses.

    Amid this European scenario, Italy maintained a privileged position vis-à-vis most of the other Member States, since provisions for specific protection of business know-how and confidential information had already been laid down under articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property. This is why Italian lawmakers intervened in articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property to merely replace the former language “business information and expertise” with the notion of “trade secrets”, while basically leaving the protections envisaged in article 98 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property unchanged to its earlier version, which was already in line with the EU rules.

    Apart from this, the legislative decree supplemented the applicable rules and improved the standards of protection of trade secrets, pursuant to EU Directive no. 2016/943, to enable judicial decisions in protection of trade secrets to be weighed against, inter alia, the significance of such information, its importance for the claimant, and the precautionary measures implemented by the owner thereof.

    In the first instance, paragraph 1-bis of article 99 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property has been introduced to take negligent behaviours into consideration on the matters of infringement of trade secrets, so that the acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets may be held unlawful even when, at the time of the challenged circumstances, the individual was, or should have been, aware, as the case may be, that the trade secrets had been directly or indirectly obtained by the party that unlawfully used or disclosed them.

    Quite the reverse, article 9, paragraph I, of the Directive has been fully implemented in article 121-ter on the preservation of confidentiality of trade secrets in the course of legal proceedings, irrespective of these being for precautionary measures or on the merits of the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of such trade secrets. According to such new provision of law, any (ordinary, civil or criminal, administrative or accounting) court of law will be entitled to prevent the counterparties, their representatives and advisors, legal counsels, clerical staff, witnesses, any court-appointed or delegated experts, and any other persons having access to the decisions, briefs and documents included in the court file, from using or disclosing the trade secrets discussed in the proceedings that the court may classify as confidential. In addition, it is expressly provided that such a prohibition shall maintain full force and effect after the conclusion of the proceedings in which scope it was imposed, while vice versa its effectiveness will be forfeited (i) in the event that the lack of the requirements set out in article 98 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property in order to have a valid trade secret is assessed by ruling, or (ii) where the trade secrets fall in the public domain or become easily accessible to industry players and experts.

    Furthermore, in the same article specific measures were laid down for the preservation of confidentiality of trade secrets in the course of legal proceedings: hence, subject to compliance with the principles of fair trial, the judge will be entitled to adopt the most appropriate measures to preserve the confidentiality of the trade secrets discussed in the trial. Besides, the article explicitly sets forth two of the measures available to the judge: i.e., restricting access to hearings, briefs and documents included in the court file; and ordering the clerks to conceal the specific parts containing the trade secrets from the documents filed in the proceeding. However, because policymakers did not deem it appropriate to enable the judicial authorities to impose such prohibitions and measures by operation of law, they preferred leaving any request in this respect to the parties’ initiative, owed to the apparent high technical expertise required to appraise the confidential nature of such trade secrets.

    With a view to ensuring a more accurate and effective preservation of trade secrets, criteria have been laid down (in article 124, paragraph 6-bis, of the Italian Code of Industrial Property), which the Judge will be bound to uphold when establishing the remedies and civil sanctions – and assessing whether these are suitable – in the proceedings on the matters of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets under article 98. For this purpose, the Court is required to take into consideration the material circumstances of the case at issue, among which:

    • the value and other specific features of the trade secrets;
    • the measures implemented by the legal holder to protect the trade secrets;
    • the actions carried out by the infringer to acquire, use or disclose the trade secrets;
    • the impact of the unlawful use or disclosure of the trade secrets;
    • the parties’ legitimate interest, and how this may be affected by the endorsement or rejection of the judge’s measures;
    • the legitimate interest of third parties;
    • the interests of the general public; and
    • the need to ensure protection of the fundamental rights.

    Not only will the Judge be bound to take these circumstances into consideration in the course of the proceedings on the merits, but also upon issuance of the precautionary measures sought by the trade secrets holder, and upon appraisal of their suitability, based on the explicit warning contained in new paragraph 5-ter of article 132 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property. Consequently, the Judge will issue a preliminary injunction or another interim measure only if the requesting company proved having adopted all the necessary measures and internal protocols to keep a given trade secret confidential.

    According to new paragraph 5-bis of article 132 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property all proceedings aimed at seeking protective measures for trade secrets, as an alternative to the application of the precautionary measures, the judge may authorise the defendant to continue to use the trade secrets, subject to providing an appropriate security for compensation of any damages suffered by their legitimate holder, in any event, without prejudice to the prohibition to disclose the trade secrets authorised for use.

    The precautionary measures adopted in protection of the trade secrets may be forfeited either for failure to commence the proceedings on the merits within the mandatory deadline (set out in article 132, paragraph 2, of the Italian Code of Industrial Property), or as a result of the claimant’s actions or omissions. Where the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secrets are subsequently found to be groundless, the claimant will be sentenced to repay the damages caused by the adopted measures.

    As a further novelty, Legislative Decree no. 63/2018 introduced a compensation, payable as an alternative to the application of the measures under article 124 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property, which may be granted upon the interested party’s application, provided that all of the following requirements laid down by new paragraph 6-ter of article 124 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property are met: at the time of the use or disclosure, the claimant was not, nor should have been, aware that the trade secrets had been obtained by the third party unlawfully using or disclosing them; the execution of these measures would be unduly burdensome for the claimant; the compensation is commensurate to the damages suffered by the party seeking the application of relieving measures and, in any event, it does not exceed the amount that would have been paid on account of royalties for the use of the trade secrets throughout the challenged period of time.

    A statute of limitations has been established in 5 (five) years for rights and actions connected with such misconducts.

    As a final provision, in line with the availability of progressive measures and enhanced accuracy and effectiveness of trade secrets protections, which are the EU Directive basic principles, a list of the items is provided which the judge ought to appraise to order the publication of his ruling, and to weigh the suitability of the claimed measures: the value of the trade secrets; the actions carried out by the infringer to acquire, use or disclose the trade secrets; the consequences of the use or disclosure of the trade secrets; the risk of the infringer carrying on with the unlawful use or disclosure of the trade secrets.

    Furthermore, to make the above appraisal the Judge shall also consider whether, based on the available information, a natural person may be identified as the actual infringer and, in the affirmative, whether the publication of such information is justified in the light of any potential damages that may be caused to the infringer’s private life and reputation.

    In conclusion, articles 388 (wilful failure to enforce a court decision) and 623 of the Italian Criminal Code (disclosure of trade or science secrets) have been amended to improve the criminal reliefs granted under the Italian legal system, so as to include breach of trade secrets, and the measures connected therewith, among the misconducts sanctioned under the above provisions.

    All that considered, a new approach in adopting internal rules and compliance’s procedures is required to companies and trade secrets owners in order to protect their confidential information and to safeguard their judicial protection and new language shall be adopted in drafting non-disclosure agreements: as a matter of fact NDAs were in the past very often merely copied and/or downloaded from the web without any juridical care and the due attention.

    “Influencer Marketing” is a very well known topic to the jurists and operators of the advertising sector dealing with commercial communication.

    There is a core principle in communication law: any form of commercial communication shall be clearly recognizable as such.

    Before the diffusion of digital communication and, along with it, the proliferation of the so-called „Influencer Marketing“, the issue of recognizability of commercial communication was generally discussed when evaluating whether an advertising content was clearly distinguishable from a journalistic or an informative content (such is the longstanding issue regarding the advertorial).

    For a short period of time there was a debate regarding the so-called subliminal advertising, which eventually fell into oblivion.

    The necessity to point out to the consumer whether the appreciation for a product or a service shown by a well-known person – precisely an “Influencer” – (i.e. the endorsement) is genuine or not has become a much encountered and controversial topic.

    It shall not be considered as spontaneous when an individual receives remuneration for wearing a fashion item, for using a smartphone, or simply when he/she receives as a gift the products that he/she promotes or other valuable products.

    It is clear and proven that the spontaneous choice of an “idol” by the public has a bigger impact on these same people rather than any traditional way of advertising. Hence the abuse of surreptitious advertising on the less easily monitored channel: the web, precisely.

    What measures should be taken to ensure that the consumers can understand clearly whether a post is subject of a contract or not?

    The answer would be very simple.

    It would be enough to require the sponsored post to contain, in clearly visible characters, terms as “Advertisement”, “Sponsored by”, “Commercial agreement” or similar notices.

    In Italy, in absence of a law regulating specifically the matter, both the Istituto della Pubblicità (Italy’s Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute) and the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (the Competition Authority) have expressed their opinion on this subject.

    In the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Institute’s digital chart it is written: “in order to make the promotional nature of content posted on social media and content sharing sites recognizable, celebrities/influencers/bloggers must at the top of their post state in a clearly distinguishable manner the words: “Pubblicità/Advertising”, or “Promosso da … brand/Promoted by…brand” or “Sponsorizzato da…brand/Sponsored by…brand” or “in collaborazione con …brand” or “in partnership with the …brand”; and/or within the first three hashtags (#) use one of the following terms: “#Pubblicità/#Advertising”, or “#Sponsorizzato da … brand/#Sponsored by the … brand “ or “#ad” along with “#brand”.

    In a press release of 2017 the Italian Competition Authority has required the addressees the use of the following warnings to be placed below the post together with the others hashtags (#), such as “#sponsored, #advertising, #paidad”, or, in the case of products given for free to the celebrity, “#productsuppliedby”; in particular, all these wordings should be followed by the name of the specific brand being advertised.

    However, browsing the Instagram’s pages of various Influencers, it is noticeable that only a few of them are actually using the indications provided by the authorities.

    And when it happens to came across Instagram’s profiles that use such indications, it is noticeable that the hashtag that is most commonly used is “#ad”, whose effectiveness (especially in Italy where terms such as “advertising”, “Adv” and, even more so, “ad” are not easily decipherable by the average consumer) raises many concerns.

    So far the Italian Competition Authority intervened sending moral suasion letters to some of the main influencers and companies producing the branded goods displayed in the posts, but still no self-regulatory, administrative or state measures have been taken.

    The same situation of uncertainty is likely to be found in other countries (here you can find a previous Legalmondo post on this topic in Germany: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/11/germany-product-placement-influencer-marketing/), with the consequence that international companies are operating in an unclear context, in which it is difficult to identify what are the risks arising from behaviours considered as unlawful.

    I have therefore decided to write this article in order to assess the state of Influencer Marketing in Italy and in other countries and get a better understanding of the regulations in force, the measures/judgments issued by the competent Authorities, the international trends and the best practices that could be adopted by international companies.

    Since I am one of the founders of the Digital Adv Lab – an interdisciplinary observatory that studies the legal implications of marketing and digital communication initiatives – I am interested in getting in touch with all the readers involved in this topic: please feel free to enter a comment and/or contact me.

    The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

    The application of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), in force since 25 May 2018, will oblige companies to deal with issues concerning IT security and liability for collection and storage of personal data, without the possibility of any further hesitation. Privacy protection will become an important part of corporate culture and will have to be necessarily managed from the top levels, i.e. the managing director as well as the management team. Employees will also be involved in this awareness process through adequate training on such matter. Companies should set forth order and priorities of some data-related procedures, in accordance with privacy by design and privacy by default principles. In other words, such companies should ensure data protection from the onset of the product phase or service ideation and design, opting for behaviors that are aimed to prevent possible issues affecting personal data.

    An even wider definition of personal data

    The concept of “personal data” refers to all the information that identifies or makes a person identifiable and provides details related to his/her features, habits, life-style, personal relationships, health and economic conditions. Also, the definition of “personal data” becomes even wider and more well-structured when considering electronic communications with new technologies including geolocation bearing significant weight.

    This transition, certainly problematic, introduces new challenges and opportunities, and highlights the question of data protection as a fundamental human right at the center of the international debate and digital policies. This results in a significant turning point. In fact, digitalization has caused several information security issues, which until a few years ago could be handled by national authorities in each single EU country, and now require a more focused and structured legal framework. The induction of platforms such as SaaS (Software as a Service) and the cloud computing growth have completely changed the scenario.

    Therefore, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) positively dealt with the request to reform the legal framework on personal data protection in 2011, since the existing legislation was no longer appropriate.

    Even though it is way too early to predict the impact of such privacy regulation, we believe that it is interesting to focus on certain general considerations and some of the GDPR’s outcomes in the international scenario.

    The potential applicability of the GDPR worldwide

    Certainly, one of the important changes brought about by the GDPR is its potential applicability worldwide: the regulation thus overcomes European borders in the name of personal data protection.

    Such regulation, in fact, not only applies to all cases where data are handled by EU based companies, but in all cases where a company, even though not EU based, also deals with EU based individuals’ personal data, within the scope to offer them goods or services or to monitor their behavior in the EU.

    Consequently, in the light of the above, all foreign companies still pursuing to offer and provide their services to EU-citizens cannot avoid complying with the GDPR.

    Furthermore, even UK organizations may be forced to comply with the regulation to protect UK citizens’ personal data and maintain their competitiveness in the EU market, for reasons of opportunity and convenience, apart from compulsoriness as above described and, in any case, for as long as Brexit does not materialize.

    The lack of connection with the data location

    The regulation not only limits foreign companies that deal with EU citizens’ personal data, but also aims to govern all the processing of personal data, irrespective of the place where such data are located. It therefore provides that all the personal data processing made by EU based companies will be subject to the GDPR, regardless of the fact whether such processing is carried out within or outside the EU.

    From a legal point of view, such data will be in the spotlight and subjected to this new regulation rather than to national laws. This means that the physical position loses relevance before the aim to grant interested individuals with a greater control on the information that is collected, processed and used by third parties.

    For sure companies may stop their business with EU citizens in order to avoid compliance with the GDPR principles, but such choice should be correctly made: i.e. the GDPR’s application should be taken into account when a company provides a web service which is available also to EU citizens.

    The disposition of strict fines

    The fines for companies that are not in compliance with such regulation can amount to up to 4% of their global revenue and up to Euro 20 million. The relevance of such measures drew attention of all the parties, particularly in the US where organizations have a strong presence in the EU. Furthermore, the GDPR applies to organizations of any dimension and to both individual enterprises as well as large companies.

    The forward-looking companies started to set forth their compliance programs immediately after the EU regulation announcement, but this appears complex and as a result meeting the set deadline called for 25 May could be difficult.

    According to PwC’s reports, 9% of US companies declare to have allocated more than 10 million dollars with the aim to obtain such compliance.

    Some compliance requirements for companies

    • Accountability principle: data processing needs to be carried out by recorded procedures, regardless of the fact that such procedures will be managed by the companies or by third parties on their behalf. Doing so will make the data controller responsible and oblige him to be compliant with the GDPR.
    • Risk based approach: the driving force of such a regulation is the aim to make companies responsible, which are therefore asked to comply with the GDPR principles by adopting a new risk based approach and risks assessment.
    • Clear and concise consent: much attention is paid to the consent of personal data processing, which should be clear, concise, distinguishable and unequivocal.
    • Data protection by design and by default: privacy management and implementation executed by means of default settings since the design phase; it means that companies should take into account the personal data protection, from the beginning a product, service or app is designed and developed.
    • Right to be forgotten: individuals are entitled to obtain, without delay, that their data is deleted by the data controller when certain conditions- provided by the GDPR -are met, such as for example when data become redundant and no longer necessary, or regarding the aims for which data have been collected or in the event when the individual’s consent is withdrawn.
    • Right to data portability: individuals are entitled to receive their personal data in a frequently-used, well-structured and machine-readable format, so as to transfer such data to another data controller, excluding any possible encumbrance by the former data controller.
    • Appointment of an EU Representative: the Representative should act on behalf of the data controller or the data processor and may be questioned by any surveillance Authority.

    How to make the transition process easier?

    The EU regulation relating to personal data protection requires a strong legal formation and, at the same time, tremendous technical implementation skills on the basis of the ongoing digitalization processes and use of even more innovative and complex technologies.

    In such regard, companies may rely on professionals who are able to provide multidisciplinary services and consultancy, not only of a legal and IT nature, but who can exchange and implement synergies between professionals and business workers such as engineers and mathematicians.

    Consequently, this burdensome commitment to follow the GDPR together with the obligation to comply with the law shall also enable companies to combine the aforesaid skills and join forces to commence a transition process that will ensure and ultimately result in growth.

    The author of this post is Giorgio Piccolotto

    According to Italian Copyright Law and to different European countries legislations, advertising creations and campaigns are not protected by copyright.

    Articles 1 and 2 of the Italian Copyright Law list many copyrighted works but do not include advertising claims and creations, even through a broad legal interpretation.

    The Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Code (Codice di Autodisciplina della Comunicazione Commerciale, hereinafter the “Code”) and the Italian Self-Regulatory Jury (hereinafter, the “Jury”) should overcome such legal gap.

    Article 13 of the Code provides the following:

    “Art. 13 – Imitation, Confusion and Exploitation

    Marketing communication should not copy or slavishly imitate that of others even if it concerns non-competitive products, especially if there is the risk of generating confusion with the marketing communication of others.

    Moreover, any exploitation of the name, trademark, notoriety and corporate image of other marketers should be avoided, if it is intended to generate an undue advantage.”

    According to the Jury case law, which often applied art. 13 of the Code, it is clear that there are two requirements for and advertising in order to obtain a legal protection: novelty and originality.

    It is new an idea which has never been used or it is not in the consumers’ memory.

    It is original an idea which consists in a significant creative effort.

    Advertising campaigns that use stereotypes are not original, thus they are not protected by law: e.g. the idea consisting in a side-by-side comparison of two dishes in order to show a detergent effectiveness.

    Another principle consists in the balance between originality and protection against imitation: the more an advertising is original (id est, it is not descriptive of the advertised product), the more it is protected against similar advertisings.

    Art. 13 of the Code protects both the “heart” (the idea) of an advertising campaign and the form: so, if an advertising has a different heart and an identical claim or form compared to a previous one, it infringes art. 13 of the Code.

    The Jury case law stated over the years a fundamental principle: when there is an identical copy of an idea or a claim of a third party (particularly if by a competitor), the originality degree required by the first advertising in order to obtain a legal protection is almost null.

    Even simple and ordinary ideas can be protected under art. 13 of the Code if they are slavishly imitated, particularly by a competitor which sells product of the same category.

    The Jury, in its decision n. 5/2018, seems to have changed its orientation on the matter, especially concerning the requirements of novelty and relevant imitation.

    The decision concerned two competitors in the fruit and vegetable sectors: La Linea Verde (owner of the trademark “Dimmidisì” (say yes to me) and manufacturer of product labelled by such mark) and Del Monte.

    La Linea Verde started to use the claim “Tutti dicono di sì” (all say yes) at the beginning of 2017 in various online and paper campaigns and in a trade fair.

    After a few months (October 2017) Del Monte started to use the claim “Tutti dicono sì” (all say yes – with a slightly different wording) in its advertising campaigns.

    Thus, La Linea Verde sent to Del Monte a cease and desist letter and later filed a complaint before the Jury claiming the infringement of art. 13 of the Code.

    In the decision, the Jury:

    1. after stating that the claims “Tutti dicono di sì” e “Tutti dicono sì” are identical, both by the form (the word “di” is not relevant) and by the content, because both the claims suggest adhesion to the products by the consumer;
    2. after stating that La Linea Verde has a prior use of the claim and stating that the publishing of the claim on the web and on a trade fair, even if not reported on an advertising search engine (like Easy Way), are appropriate in order to prove the prior use of a claim;
    • after stating that the claim has never been used in that market and in different markets in the past decade;

    the Jury eventually stated that Del Monte slogan has to be considered “a logical development of an advertising idea that Del Monte, undeniably, has been proposed for a long time”, referring to the ’80s and ’90s popular advertising “L’uomo Del Monte ha detto sì” and to the less popular “Sì al meglio, sì a Del Monte”.

    The Jury stated that, even if there is a formal overlapping between the claims, the advertisings have their own aspects and they cannot be overlapped in the consumer’s perception (and, in my opinion, this is contradictory, because the Jury previously recognized in the same decision that the claims had the same meaning: suggesting the adhesion to the products by the consumer).

    It seems this is a change of course by the Jury concerning claim imitation and likelihood of confusion (art. 13). The Jury stated that it is possible to use two identical (form and content) claims, both original, because there is “a logical development” between an expression (“Tutti dicono sì”) and a communicative path (“to say yes” by Del Monte).

    It is a change of course that, in the future, may create some problems to creative directors and lawyers: it will not be sufficient to monitor if a claim has been already used by third parties, but it will be necessary to check if an advertising is “a logical development” of a different communication by a third party. This would result in a subjective judgment which affects the fundamental legal certainty principle.

    The author of this post is Elena Carpani.

    The fourth Industrial Revolution, currently experienced by global economy, displays a melting-pot of a wide range of new technologies combined one another, impacting on every aspect of economy, industry and society by progressively blurring the borders of the physical, digital and biological spheres.

    The growth of robotics, of artificial and virtual intelligence, of connectivity among objects and of the latter with humans, is contributing to strengthening the virtual side of economy, made of its intangible assets. Even trade is tending more and more towards a trade of intellectual property rights rather than trade of physical objects.

    In such a scenario, protection of intellectual property is becoming increasingly important: the value of innovation embedded in any product is likely to increase as compared to the value of the physical object itself. In other words, protection of intellectual property could significantly affect economic growth and trade and shall necessarily go forward as the economy becomes more and more virtual.

    Future growth of the 4.0 economy depends on maintaining policies that, on one hand allow connectivity among millions of objects and, on the other, provide for strong patent protection mechanisms, thus, encouraging large and risky investments in technology innovation.

    Are SMEs, which represent the beating heart of the Italian economy, ready for all this? Has Italy adopted any policy aimed at boosting innovation and the relevant protection for SMEs?

    After more than four years since the launch of the Startup Act (Decree Law No 179 of 18 October 2012), Italian legislation confirms being among the most internationally advanced programs for innovative business support strategies. If we look at the Start Up Manifesto Policy Tracker Startup Manifesto Policy Tracker (a manifesto for entrepreneurship and innovation to power growth in the European Union), published in March 2016, Italy is in second place among the 28 EU Member States, in terms of the take up rate of recommendations made by the European Commission on the innovative entrepreneurship issue.

    The Annual Report to Parliament on the implementation of legislation in support of innovative startups and SMEs (Edition 2016) confirms the results of the Startup Manifesto Policy Tracker: Italian ecosystem has grown in terms of number of startups recorded (+41% on the previous year), of human resources involved (+47,5%), of average value of production (+33%) and, finally, of funding raising (+128%, considering access to credit via the SME Guarantee Fund).

    This growth is the outcome of both the inventiveness and the attention to innovation that have always characterized Italian entrepreneurs as well as of the progress made by Italian legislation over the past years: changes were introduced in order to boost the national system for business startups and, in some cases, to promote innovative entrepreneurship as a whole.

    Adopted measures include, for example: the implementing Ministerial decrees on tax credits for R&D investments; the ITA Service Card for innovative SMEs, the multimedia, bilingual online platform #ItalyFrontiers (the aim of which is to promote capital investment and encourage open innovation projects involving innovative Italian businesses); Italia Startup Visa and Italia Startup Hub (the renewal, under the 2016 Decree on Immigration Flows, of a preferential procedure for the granting of visas and the conversion of permits to stay for self-employed for non-EU citizens wanting to move to Italy or remain there to start up an innovative enterprise); the launch of a new simplified online company incorporation procedure that enables innovative startups to be opened as limited liability companies, granting significant time and cost reductions; the extension (until 2016) and the reinforcement of fiscal incentives available for investment in innovative startups; finally, the extension of the free, simplified access to the Guarantee Fund to include innovative SMEs in order to make it easier for them to obtain credit.

    The importance of Intellectual Property in the modern economy

    A national policy that has a target of incentivizing the use of Intellectual Property is a policy that will have beneficial effects on the entire national (and international) economy.

    Proof of this, are the results of the studies carried out by the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights and the European Patent Office (EPO) on the contribution of intellectual property rights (IPR) on the EU economy.

    The study analyzed the effects of intellectual property on the EU in terms of gross domestic production, occupation, wages and trade. Here are some of the most interesting data:

    – 42% of the total economic activity in the EU (approximately EUR 5.7 trillion) and 38% of occupation (approximately 82 million workplaces) is attributable to IPR-intensive industries;

    – IPR-intensive industries pay significantly higher wages than other industries, with a wage premium of 46%;

    – IPR-intensive industries tend to be more resilient against the economic crisis;

    – IPR-intensive industries account for about 90% of EU trade with the rest of the world, generating a trade surplus for the EU of EUR 96 billion;

    – about 40% of large companies own IPRs.

    The data gathered by this study should raise social and political awareness as to the importance of stimulating not only large companies, SMEs and startups in general, but also those, which use intellectual property.

    The innovation criteria

    An interesting measure that is showing good results in relation to the dissemination of IPR companies in Italy is the introduction, thanks to the Startup Act, of the concept of innovative startup.

    The Startup Act provides facilitating measures (e.g.: incorporation and following statutory modifications by means of a standard model with digital signature, cuts to red tape and fees, flexible corporate management, extension of terms for covering losses, exemption from regulations on dummy companies, exemption from the duty to affix the compliance visa for compensation of VAT credit) applicable to companies which have, as well as other requirements, at least one of the following requirements:

    – at least 15% of the company’s expenses can be attributed to R&D activities;

    – at least 1/3 of the total workforce are PhD students, the holders of a PhD or researchers; or, alternatively, 2/3 of the total workforce must hold a Master’s degree;

    – the enterprise is the holder, depositary or licensee of a registered patent (industrial property), or the owner and author of a registered software.

    The Startup Act is still having positive effects on the startups demographic trends. As a matter of fact, during the first six months of 2016 there has been a growth rate of 15,5% in the number of registered companies.

    The success of the Startup Act brought the Italian legislator to extend with the Investment Compact (Decree Law No 3 of 24 January 2015)  most of the benefits provided for innovative startups also to innovative SMEs.

    By the Investment Compact the Italian Government recognized that innovative startups and innovative SMEs represent two sequential stages of the same continuous and coherent growth path. In a context as the Italian one, dominated by SMEs, it is fundamental to strengthen this kind of enterprises.

    The measures in question apply only to SMEs, as defined by the European Commission Recommendation 361/2003 (companies with less than 250 employees and with a total turnover that does not exceed € 43 million), which have, as well as other requirements, at least two of the following requirements:

    – at least 3% of either the company’s expenses or its turnover (the largest value is considered) can be attributed to R&D activities;

    – at least 1/5 of the total workforce are PhD students, PhD holders or researchers; alternatively, 1/3 of the total workforce must hold a Master’s degree;

    – the enterprise is the holder, depositary or licensee of a registered patent (industrial property) or the owner of a program for original registered computers.

    Unfortunately to this day the Investment Compact has not produced the expected results: on one hand, there is a problem connected to the not well-defined concept of “innovative SMEs”, differently from what happened with startups; on the other hand, there are structural shortcomings in the communication of government incentives: these communication issues are particularly significant if we consider that the policy on innovative SMEs is a series of self-selecting, non-automatic incentives.

    Patent Box

    Another important measure related to the IP exploitation is the Patent Box, the optional tax rule applicable to income derived from the exploitation of intellectual property rights.

    The Patent Box rules were introduced by the 2015 Stability Act and give to businesses, from 2015 onwards, the option of tax-exempting up to 50% of the income derived from the commercial exploitation of software protected by copyright, industrial patents for inventions, utility models and complementary protection certificates, designs, models, company information and technical/industrial know-how, provided that they can be protected as secret information according to the Italian Code of Industrial Property: meaning patented intangibles or assets that have been registered and are awaiting a patent.

    Originally, also the exploitation of trademarks allowed entrepreneurs to choose the Patent Box optional tax rule, but a very recent Decree  erased that provision by excluding trademarks from the Patent Box regime. This exclusion has just been introduced in order to align the Italian Patent Box to the prescriptions of the Organization for Economy Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    Said policy has a dual purpose: on one hand, it seeks to encourage Italian entrepreneurs to develop, protect and use intellectual property; on the other hand, it intends to make the Italian market more attractive for national and foreign long-term investment, while protecting the Italian tax base. The incentive encourages the placement, and preservation in Italy, of intangibles that are currently held abroad by Italian or foreign companies and also fosters investments in R&D.

    The Patent Box is certainly of great importance for Italian economy and has relevant merits, but it can be further improved. During the convention held on the 8th of May 2017 in Milan entitled “Fiscal levers for business development: the patent box example”, organized by Indicam, the institute for fight against counterfeiting established by Centromarca, it was highlighted that one aspect to improve is that of the Patent Box’s appeal to SMEs: there is a need for this policy, which was thought mainly for large companies, to be really effective. One solution, proposed by the Vice-Minister of Finance and Economy Luigi Casero, guest of the convention, is to «introduce some statistical clusters, a kind of sector studies, an intervention of analysis and evaluation of the fiscal indicators of a specific type of company».

    UPC

    The last matter that deserves to be mentioned is that of the Unified Patent Court: Italy has ratified the United Patent Court Agreement on the 10th of February 2017.

    As it is known, in order to start its operations the Unified Patent Court needs the ratification also of United Kingdom. Moreover, one of UPC central division should be located in London in addition to the ones in Paris, Munich. After Brexit this maintaining of the London Court appears inappropriate both under a juridical and an EU opportunistic point of view.

    As provided for the UPC Convention a section of the central division should be in Italy because it is the fourth EU member state (after France, Germany and the UK) as to the number of validated European patents in its territory: the London Court should be therefore relocated to Milan.

    Moreover Italy is one of the main countries in the EU applying for not only European patents but also trademarks and designs (and so contributes substantial fees) yet it does not host any European IP institutions.

    An Italian section of the UPC would certainly bring a higher awareness, also of smaller enterprises, in relation to the importance of IP protection.

    Conclusion

    A disruptive and unprecedented transformation is taking place, involving industry, economy and society, with its main whose main driver being the relentless ascent of its intangible component.

    What we have to do, as a society, is follow this transformation by changing our way of thinking and working, abandoning the old paradigms of the analogic era.

    Policy measures as the Startup Act, the Investment Compact and the Patent Box are surely important initial steps that are bringing certain positive effects, but they are not enough and they have not yet achieved the maximum results.

    As pointed out by the #StartupSurvey, the first national statistical survey of innovative startups, launched by the Italian National Institute of Statistics and the Ministry of Economic Development (the data were gathered by a mass mailing to all the innovative startups listed in the special section on 31 December 2015), the majority of Italian startups and SMEs (52,3%) have not adopted any formal mechanism, as the ownership of an industrial patent, to protect their innovation. Only 16,1% of the respondents owned a patent and only 11,8% owned a registered software.

    Among the reasons that bring startups to not adopt protection mechanisms, the majority of the entrepreneurs (48,4%) claimed to be convinced that the innovation of their enterprise could not be taken away by third parties. On the other hand, a considerable number (25,5%) said that they were not aware of the necessary strategies.

    The data gathered by the survey confirm that there is a communication and information issue, as noted in the paragraph above, to be solved.

    An interesting initiative relating to this problem is the new questionnaire realized by the Head Office for the fight against counterfeiting of the Ministry of Economic Development. This new and free service has been conceived, in particular, for startups and SMEs, allowing them to carry out an online self-assessment in relation to intellectual property.

    The aim of the questionnaire is to make the enterprises aware of their intellectual property range and to direct them towards the adoption of appropriate strategies for the valorization of their intangible assets.