Skip to main content

Brief Report on Italian Unfair Competition Law

  • Chapter
  • 1417 Accesses

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law ((MSIP,volume 1))

Abstract

As in France, the law against unfair competition in Italy was originally developed by case law within the limits of the general tort clause in the 1865 Civil Code, according to which “any act by a person that causes harm to another renders the person whose fault has caused the harm liable for damages”. Unfair competition was regarded as a special actus reus under tort and was sanctioned essentially in the form of liability for damages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. “Einleitung: Internationalrechtliche Fragen,” in: Jacobs, Lindacher & Teplitzky (eds.), “UWG Großkommentar” note F 46 (1994); see also Ulmer & Schricker, “Das Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs in den Mitgliedstaaten der EWG” V, Italien, 4 et seq. (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  2. This traditional view of the law against unfair competition, set out in summary by Auteri, “La concorrenza sleale,” in: Rescigno (ed.), “Trattato di diritto privato” 341 et seq., Vol. 18 (1983), is also shared by the prevailing theory: see for instance Abriani & Cottino, “La concorrenza sleale,” in: Cottino (ed.), “Diritto industriale” 271 et seq., Vol. 2 (2001) and Vanzetti, in: Vanzetti & Di Cataldo, “Diritto industriale” 3 et seq. (4th ed. 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Thus Marchetti, “Boicottaggio e rifiuto di contrattare” 203 et seq. (1969); Auteri, supra note 3, at 415 et seq. and no doubt also Mansani, “Ribassi di prezzo, offerte promozionali e concorrenza sleale” 131 et seq. (1990); cf. also Vanzetti, supra note 3, at 96 et seq. and Floridia, “Concorrenza sleale e pubblicità,” in: Auteri, Floridia, Mangini, Olivieri, Ricolfi & Spada, “Diritto industriale. Proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza” 308 et seq. (2nd ed. 2005); in case law, Corte di Cassazione (Cass.), December 17, 1994, No. 10863, 1995 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 62 and Cass., March 25, 1988, Nr. 2579, 1988 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  4. For an overview, see Bastian, “Werberecht in Italien” 10 et seq. (1996). The view that the infringement of such regulations fundamentally infringes professional correctness is upheld by the present author, “La disciplina della pubblicità” in: Auteri, Floridia, Mangini, Olivieri, Ricolfi & Spada, supra note 4, at 334 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Above all Marchetti, supra note 4, and Libertini, “I principi della correttezza professionale nella disciplina della concorrenza sleale,” 1999 Eur. Dir. Priv. 533 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  6. On the same lines Libertini, “Il ruolo del giudice nell’applicazione delle norme antitrust,” 1999 I Giur. comm. 670, and ibid., supra note 6, at 553 et seq. and Trib. Roma, March 31, 2000, 2001 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Assenting, Libertini, supra I principi della correttezza professionale nella disciplina della concorrenza sleale,” 1999 Eur. Dir. Priv. 533 note 6; Foggia District Court, April 11, 2000, 2001 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 804 and Bari District Court, July 15, 1993, 1993 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 664. Concerning sales at below cost, cf. Mansani, supra note 4, at 51 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E.g. Cass., March 21, 1972, No. 1023, 1972 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 28 and Corte di Appello di Milano (App. Milano), May 14, 1996, 1996 Giur.ann.dir.ind 811.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Above all Ghidini, “Slealtà della concorrenza e costituzione economica” (1978) and Santagata, “Concorrenza sleale e interessi protetti” (1975). For a critical analysis of these opinions, see Jaeger, “Valutazione comparativa di interessi e concorrenza sleale,” 1970 I Riv.dir.ind. 5 et seq. and Auteri, supra note 3, at 346 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. as example of many Marchetti, supra note 4, at 237 et seq.; Jaeger, supra note 10; Auteri, supra note 3, 360 et seq.; Libertini, supra note 6. For a detailed exposition, see Schaltenberg, “Die Bekämpfung irreführender und unlauterer Werbung in Italien” 17 et seq. (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  11. For a detailed exposition and analysis, see Bastian, supra note 5, at 95 et seq.; in Italian literature, as an example of many Meli, “La repressione della pubblicità ingannevole” (1994); Fusi, Testa & Cottafavi, “La pubblicità ingannevole” (1993); and, for a summary, Auteri, supra note 5, at 341 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See inter alia decisions of the Trib. Roma, March 31, 2003, 2003 Giur.ann.dir.ind. 867; February 2, 1999, 2000 Giust.civ. 1189, and February 25, 1998, 1999 Giur.it. 335; in the literatures: Vanzetti in: Vanzetti & Di Cataldo, supra note 3, at 88 et seq. and Auteri, supra note 5, at 343 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  13. On Directive 97/55/EC and then Regulation No. 67 of February 25, 2000, see as example of many Meli, “La pubblicità comparativa fra vecchia e nuova disciplina,” 1998 I Giur. comm. 267 et seq.; Floridia, “Il controllo della pubblicità comparativa in Italia,” 1998 Dir.ind. 165 et seq.; Auteri, “La pubblicità comparativa secondo la Direttiva 97/55/CE,” 1998 Contratto e impresa/Europa 601 et seq.; Fusi, Testa & Cottafavi, “Le nuove regole per la pubblicità comparativa” (2000) and Auteri, supra note 5, at 352 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  14. I upheld this view in the publications cited supra note 18 and in the essay “I poteri dell’Autorità garante in materia di pubblicità ingannevole e comparativa,” 2002 I Riv.dir.ind. 266 et seq., 281 et seq. Meli and Floridia also argued in favour of a limitation of the Authority’s powers concerning comparative advertising that was (also) misleading. However, the Authority has also held itself competent in cases in which no consumer interests were involved. Characteristic is decision No. 9989 dated September 27, 2001 in the case of Telenorba v. Telerama.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Details in Fusi, Testa & Cottafavi, loc.cit., 345 et seq. The Authority appears to be tending in this direction.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Auteri, P. (2007). Brief Report on Italian Unfair Competition Law. In: Hilty, R.M., Henning-Bodewig, F. (eds) Law Against Unfair Competition. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71882-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics