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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.