By judgment of 23 April 2026 in Case C-132/25, M.M. Ristorazione Srl v. Villa Ramazzini Srl, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared incompatible with EU law the Italian regime that allowed preliminary injunctions in industrial property matters to remain in force even where no proceedings on the merits had been initiated.
1. Scope of the decision: anticipatory vs. non-anticipatory measures
The judgment concerns only preliminary injunctions and, more broadly, anticipatory measures under Article 132(4) of the Italian IP Code. It does not affect the regime applicable to preservative measures.
Non-anticipatory measures (inspection and seizure). For these measures, the obligation to commence proceedings on the merits already existed prior to the judgment. Article 132(2) and (3) of the IP Code provides that, if the merits are not pursued within the peremptory time limit (20 working days or 31 calendar days), the measure automatically lapses. Judgment C-132/25 introduces no change in this respect.
Anticipatory measures (injunctions). Article 131 of the IP Code empowers courts to prohibit the continuation or repetition of an infringement. This type of measure had been exempted from the obligation to bring proceedings on the merits by Article 132(4), which left it to the parties’ discretion—rather than imposing a duty—to initiate such proceedings. It is precisely this exemption that the CJEU found incompatible with Article 9(5) of Directive 2004/48/EC.
2. The Court’s ruling
The case originated from a preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Rome prohibiting the use of the sign “Mò Mò Pizza, Sapori e Salute”, deemed to interfere with the “Mò Mò” trademark. Proceedings on the merits were never initiated. The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) stayed the proceedings and referred the question to the CJEU.
The Court held that the “anticipatory” nature of a measure does not remove it from the EU framework governing provisional measures. Even an injunction capable of anticipating the effects of a final judgment remains a provisional measure and, as such, must be accompanied by the safeguards set out in the Enforcement Directive. These include the defendant’s right to seek revocation or cessation of the measure if the claimant does not pursue the case on the merits.
The Court emphasized the need to strike a balance between effective enforcement of IP rights and the protection of defence rights: provisional measures must be swift and effective, but cannot become de facto final remedies in the absence of a full assessment on the merits. Considerations of procedural economy cannot override the safeguards enshrined in Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2004/48, read in conjunction with Article 50 TRIPS and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
3. Retroactive effect
The possibility that the judgment affects past decisions is consistent with the CJEU’s settled case law, according to which interpretations of EU law have retroactive (ex tunc) effect: they clarify the meaning of EU provisions as they should have been understood from the outset. Consequently, incompatible national rules must be disapplied also in relation to situations arising prior to the judgment.
4. Practical guidance for existing injunctions
Importantly, the judgment does not automatically invalidate injunctions already granted. Article 9(5) of Directive 2004/48— as expressly clarified by the Court—requires an initiative by the defendant: absent an application for revocation or a declaration of ineffectiveness, the injunction continues to produce its effects.
It is also essential to note that an application for revocation does not amount to proceedings on the merits and does not trigger them. It is a request addressed to the court that issued the provisional measure, to be decided within the interim proceedings, without opening a full trial on ownership or validity of the right.
Subject to further developments in practice, a first operational assessment may be outlined depending on the specific circumstances:
5. Conclusions
The ruling marks a significant realignment of Italian law with the EU framework: urgency may justify immediate and incisive protection, but cannot indefinitely replace a full determination on the merits. For IP right holders, this entails greater strategic attention in managing interim litigation and, for existing injunctions still in force, a careful assessment of whether to initiate proceedings on the merits. For defendants, the judgment opens new avenues to challenge measures that have remained effective without subsequent judicial scrutiny on the merits.
