de Bosio & Vecchione (Interleges member in Italy) has recently had four important cases in the top European Courts. Two concern deceptive signs misleading consumers, against the government of Italy, the EU Commission and the EU Intellectual Property Office, and the other two the legitimacy of sanctions by an Italian Governmental Agency for alleged breach of Covid-19 treatment mandates.
- A first case concerns the protection of the “Salaparuta” trademark for Sicilian wines produced by Duca di Salaparuta S.p.A. against an identical denomination of origin “Salaparuta” (“PDO”) registered at EU by the Italian State 30 years after the EU registration of the earlier trademark. Upon motion of de Bosio & Vecchione the case has been submitted by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation to the European Court of Justice,. The Italian Courts found that the “Salaparuta” “PDO” is misleading consumers because of the reputation of the earlier identical trademark, however a loophole in EU transitional rule causes uncertainty, as it is unclear whether PDOs registered for wines within August 2009 are invalid if they mislead consumers because of reputation of the earlier identical trademark as PDOs registered for wines after August 2009 certainly are. Portugal has concluded in favour of the thesis of de bosio & Vecchione, while Italy and the European Commission have concluded against. The opinion of Spanish advocate general of the European Union Campos Sánchez-Bordona shall be read at the public hearing of April 3 2025 at 9:30 at the courtroom of the European Court of Justice, Luxembourg, the top Court of the EU. Anyone can attend. Prof. Denis Philippe, Chairman of Interleges and Prof. Romano Vaccarella, former judge at the Italian Constitutional Court have joined de Bosio & Vecchione in the defence of the earlier “Salaparuta” trademark rights, against Italy and the European Commission.
- On April 2, 2025 at 9:30 at the General Court of the EU, Luxembourg (public hearing, anyone can attend), judgment will be delivered in the “SWISSE” case, brought forward by de Bosio & Vecchione. The case concerns whether “SWISSE” used as trademark for Chinese-Australian skincare and vitamins food supplements is misleading consumers in light of “SWISS” reputation. The EU Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) ruled that SWISSE is not misleading because of the different spelling. The position of the EUIPO is supported by the British law firm Mischon de Reya, considered to be one of the leading IP firms in the world.
- The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Strasburg, decided to forward to a judicial panel two cases brought forward by de Bosio & Vecchione against the Italian government concerning the legitimacy of sanctions by the Italian Government for alleged breach of Covid-19 treatment mandates. It has to be underlined that not more than 10% of the applications to the ECHR pass this first barrier. In the first of these cases a lady laboratory technician was prohibited to continue to work between May 2022 and October 2022 (unless she consented to a “booster”) because allegedly she had not complied with “vaccine” mandates. In reality however, the lady had completed the primary course of two doses, and thereafter she got infected, the positive molecular testing was officially recorded by the Health Authorities, so she should have not been subject to any further mandate (booster) (infection = booster) or at least until end of September 2022. However, she didn’t reply to a registered e-mail from her Medical Council, a governmental body, accusing her of not being in compliance with the mandate, as she was abroad in her honey moon. The Italian Administrative Courts considered that she was in breach with the mandate (requiring according to the Administrative Courts the booster to be injected within 4 months from completion of primary course of two injections, irrespective of the following Covid-19 infection because the lady did not timely object to the “booster” order) and confirmed that she was prohibited to work and earn her salary for more than four months. The lady was working in one of the few specialised laboratories for early diagnosis of genetic diseases such as the Down syndrome. Since April 1st 2022 the Italian government had ruled that the pandemic emergency was over, despite this the prohibition for this vaccinated, infected and fully recovered lady was implemented without any temperament whatsoever. de Bosio & Vecchione brought forward the case through the administrative Courts (first degree and appeal before the Council of State), with no avail, and thereafter applied to the ECHR considering that the governmental order against the lady technician and the decisions by the Administrative Courts were unreasonable intrusions in the lady’s enjoyment of her human right to work and not be forced to health treatments.
- The second case concerns a self-employed medical doctor specialist in integrative medicine who did not comply with Covid-19 vaccine mandates because of lack (at the time) of unconditional marketing approval, and reservations on mRNA technology. The doctor was fine with the sanction of not being allowed to in-person visiting (as opposed to “telemedicine”), however since January 2022 the Italian government prohibited also “telemedicine” (via telephone, online or social media) to medical doctors not in compliance with vaccine mandates. de Bosio & Vecchione filed a motion to the Italian Administrative Court to have the constitutionality of the prohibition of “telemedicine” be verified by the Italian Constitutional Court. The Italian Constitutional Court however refused to decide on the submitted issue, alleging that the Italian Administrative Court didn’t have jurisdiction. de Bosio & Vecchione appealed to the Council of State considering that the prohibition to the plaintiff to exercise “telemedicine” was contained in a specific administrative order which itself provided that against that administrative order recourse was possible only before the Administrative Courts, and that the Council of State had repeatedly confirmed the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts. The Council of State refused to render a decision as it did not want to contradict the Constitutional Court and did not want to contradict its own case-law either. de Bosio & Vecchione thus filed a recourse to the Supreme Court of Cassation, however the Court endorsed the position set-out by the Constitutional Court and ruled out the jurisdiction of Administrative Courts. Under Italian law however only Administrative Courts are allowed to annul executive orders of any governmental entity or agency, and therefore recourse to ordinary non administrative Courts would be useless. On top of that under Italian procedural law it is unclear how to continue a case after the Supreme Court of Cassation rules out the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts after a case has been brought to the Italian Council of State. de Bosio & Vecchione has thus filed recourse to the European Court of Human rights considering that the Italian system of separate jurisdictions regarding administrative orders from governmental bodies is so confused that it amounts to a denial of justice and exposes the addressee of governmental orders to abuses and lack of appropriate and timely judicial remedy.