Following its 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 held that the Italian rules allowing preliminary injunctions in intellectual property matters to remain effective even where no proceedings on the merits were commenced were incompatible with EU law. In response, the Italian Government acted urgently to align domestic legislation with EU requirements by enacting Decree-Law No. 100 of 12 June 2026, published in the Official Gazette last Friday and entering into force immediately.
1. Background: the C-132/25 judgment
The case arose 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 trademark “Mò Mò”. No proceedings on the merits were subsequently commenced, and the Italian Supreme Court referred the matter to the CJEU.
The Court held that the “anticipatory” nature of a measure does not remove it from the scope of the European rules governing provisional measures. Even an injunction capable of producing effects similar to those of a final judgment remains a provisional measure and must therefore be accompanied by the safeguards provided by Directive 2004/48/EC (the Enforcement Directive), including the defendant’s right to seek revocation or termination of the measure where the claimant fails to pursue the substantive proceedings. Accordingly, the exemption from the obligation to commence proceedings on the merits contained in Article 132(4) of the Italian Industrial Property Code was found to be incompatible with Article 9(5) of the Directive.
2. Legislative intervention: Decree-Law No. 100/2026
Through the first three paragraphs of Article 2, the Decree-Law amends Article 132(4) of the Industrial Property Code and Article 162-bis(4) of the Copyright Act, while also introducing transitional provisions.
Under the new regime, preliminary measures capable of anticipating the effects of a judgment on the merits in intellectual property matters may be declared ineffective where proceedings on the merits are not commenced within the statutory time limit or, after commencement, are subsequently discontinued. Such declaration may be issued upon application by the party subject to the measure, provided the application is filed within thirty days from either the expiry of the deadline for commencing proceedings on the merits or the termination of those proceedings.
3. Transitional provisions
The transitional regime applies to anticipatory preliminary measures already in force on 12 June 2026, the date on which the Decree-Law entered into force, and therefore governed by the previous wording of Article 132(4) of the Industrial Property Code or Article 162-bis(4) of the Copyright Act.
Parties subject to such measures may seek their revocation or a declaration of ineffectiveness, under the procedure set out in Article 669-novies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, within sixty days from the entry into force of the Decree-Law. Failure to act within that period results in forfeiture of the right to challenge the measure.
The Decree-Law further provides that, where such an application is filed, the party benefiting from the measure may request reinstatement of the deadline for commencing proceedings on the merits.
4. Assessment: balancing compliance and stability
The legislative reform aligns Italian law with the principle established by the CJEU, namely that the failure to commence proceedings on the merits must render anticipatory preliminary measures in industrial property matters ineffective, upon request of the affected party.
At the same time, ineffectiveness is not automatic. It depends on the filing of a specific application within a strict time limit. In practice, this preserves the stability of existing preliminary measures in situations where neither party has a genuine interest in pursuing substantive litigation. The legislature has therefore implemented the European judgment without causing the automatic collapse of injunctions already granted, consistently with the CJEU’s own reasoning, which links the termination of the measure to an initiative taken by the defendant.
5. Conditional stability of IP preliminary measures
The reform does not eliminate the stability traditionally associated with anticipatory injunctions in industrial property disputes; rather, it changes its legal basis. The new Article 132(4) establishes a form of “conditional stability”. The preliminary measure continues to produce effects even where proceedings on the merits are not commenced, but it becomes vulnerable to a declaration of ineffectiveness upon application by the party subject to it.
The defining feature of the new regime is that ineffectiveness is not automatic. Failure to commence proceedings on the merits, or their subsequent discontinuance, does not by itself terminate the measure. A specific application must be filed within thirty days. If no such application is made, the injunction remains fully effective.
From a systemic perspective, the legislature has attempted to reconcile the requirements of the CJEU judgment with the traditional function of industrial property injunctions, which often resolve the dispute in practical terms. The new rules preserve the effectiveness of interim protection while ensuring that defendants are not indefinitely bound by measures that are never tested in substantive proceedings.
6. Practical implications
For holders of existing injunctions
The transitional regime does not grant beneficiaries of existing measures an independent opportunity to commence proceedings on the merits. Their only route to substantive proceedings is through a request for reinstatement, which may be filed only if the opposing party first challenges the measure. The practical approach is therefore reactive rather than proactive.
If the party subject to the injunction allows the sixty-day challenge period to expire, the injunction effectively becomes permanently stabilized without any need for proceedings on the merits. If, however, a challenge is brought, the beneficiary should promptly seek reinstatement and commence substantive proceedings.
Where the injunction has already exhausted its practical commercial impact and no residual economic interests remain, it is likely that the affected party will refrain from acting, allowing the measure to become definitively consolidated through the passage of time.
For newly issued injunctions
For measures granted after the entry into force of the Decree-Law, the situation is reversed. To preserve the effectiveness of an anticipatory injunction, the beneficiary must commence proceedings on the merits within the statutory deadline. Failure to do so exposes the measure to a declaration of ineffectiveness upon application by the affected party. In such cases, the timely commencement of substantive proceedings once again becomes the preferred strategy.
For parties subject to injunctions
The Decree-Law clearly defines both the timing and procedural requirements for challenging injunctions, including a strict forfeiture period for existing measures. Parties affected by such injunctions should therefore promptly review their position and take action where appropriate.
7. Conclusions and next steps
The Decree-Law must now be submitted to Parliament for conversion into law. Further amendments remain possible during the legislative process, including potentially significant changes to the final structure of the regime and, in particular, to the transitional provisions applicable to measures already in force. Close monitoring of the parliamentary process is therefore advisable.
