Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 MAY 2013

Pucci v. Tucci: Latest development in a protracted legal saga

DLA Piper Australia
Explore more from DLA Piper Australia

A recent European IP law fight re-ignited when both companies sought to register their trademarks at the community level.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Stefania Baldazzi
Stefania Baldazzi
Giulia Zappaterra
Giulia Zappaterra

At the end of 2012, the EU court of Justice rendered three decisions on the legal fight between El Corte Inglés S.A and the Italian fashion designer Emilio Pucci, involving word trademark "Pucci" and figurative trademarks "Emilio Pucci" and "Emidio Tucci".

The passionate legal saga started in 1977, when El Corte Inglés elected to operate in Spain, with an imaginary Italian name Emidio Tucci. Emidio Tucci was a trademark intended to be more attractive to consumers in conveying an image of Italian elegance.

Despite the opposition of Emilio Pucci, the trademark was finally granted as a Spanish trademark to El Corte Inglés, on the ground of lack of similarity between the names.

The fight re-ignited when both companies sought to register their trademarks at the community level.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision