You may take my company and my trademarks, but you cannot take my name

No items found.
August 15, 2011
No items found.

A recent judgement from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-263/09P highlights the interplay between Community Trade Marks (CTM) and national rights.

Case C-263/09P centred on a dispute between Edwin Co. Ltd. (Edwin) of Japan, and Elio Fiorucci[i], an Italian fashion designer of renown in the 1970s. In 1989, Fiorucci’s company, Fiorucci SpA, went into administration and its creative assets, including trademarks comprising the element “FIORUCCI”, were later sold to Edwin in 1990.

In 1999, the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) registered “ELIO FIORUCCI” as a Community Trade Mark (CTM) for Edwin. Subsequently, in 2003, Fiorucci filed an application with OHIM for a declaration of invalidity based, amongst other things, on Article 52(2)(a) of European Regulation No. 40/94.

Article 52 of European Regulation No. 40/94 provides grounds on which a CTM can be declared invalid. Article 52(2)(a) essentially states that a CTM shall be declared invalid where use of the CTM may be prohibited pursuant to an earlier right to a name under Community legislation or national law. Fiorucci asserted that he possessed a right to the personal name ELIO FIORUCCI by virtue of Article 8(3) of the Italian Industrial Property Code (CPI), which specifies that personal names of well known people may only be registered by, or with the consent of, the proprietor.

The CTM was initially cancelled by the Cancellation Division at OHIM. However, after numerous appeals, and annulments of previous decisions, this CJEU judgment brings a final ruling by which Edwin’s trademark for ELIO FIORUCCI is held invalid.

Edwin had argued that Fiorucci was not entitled to rights under Article 8(3) of the CPI because its purpose was to prevent third parties from exploiting for commercial purposes the name of a person who had become famous in a non-commercial sector. However, it was found that the structure of Article 52(2) of Regulation No. 40/94 was inconsistent with this narrow interpretation. In particular, even if the name had been used commercially or registered as a trade mark, Article 8(3) could still apply, particularly because the name could be the subject of an additional registration in a different class of goods or services.

Whilst Article 8(3) CPI, being Italian national law, is of limited relevance to most CTM proprietors, this decision highlights the importance of national rights in relation to the validity of CTM registrations. In particular, the decision demonstrates the power of unregistered national rights when seeking to invalidate a CTM.

Interestingly, the courts declined to consider Edwin’s plea that the rights to the name ELIO FIORUCCI were included in the original transfer of assets from Fiorucci to Edwin. This serves to remind intellectual property practitioners of the importance of considering unregistered rights when arranging transfers of intellectual property.


[i]In 1979, along with Halston and Gucci, Fiorucci was memorably name-checked in the Sister Sledge disco song, He's The Greatest Dancer.

Recent Case Reports

R.262A applications required to maintain confidentiality in UPC Proceedings
03 March 2026
The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.
Long arm not available for amended patent
02 March 2026
IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.
Re-establishment of rights following failure to apply for a cost decision in time
02 March 2026
The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.