Decree-Law No. 100 of 12 June 2026 (Justice Decree): amendments to the rules on interim measures relating to industrial property and copyright.

Decree-Law No. 100 of 12 June 2026 amends the rules governing interim measures in the field of industrial property and copyright, with the aim of bringing the Italian system into line with the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-132/25.

The issue concerns a very practical matter for businesses: what happens when, in a dispute over trade marks, patents, distinctive signs or copyright, a court grants an urgent measure that effectively anticipates the effects of the final decision, for example by immediately prohibiting the use of a sign or ordering the withdrawal of a product from the market.

Under the Italian system, so-called ‘anticipatory’ interim measures had become particularly entrenched: in some cases, they could continue to produce effects even without the subsequent proceedings on the merits having commenced. This arrangement has been called into question by the Court of Justice, which held that even an urgent measure that anticipates the effects of the final judgment remains, nevertheless, a provisional measure. For this reason, it cannot effectively become a final decision without the main proceedings having been instituted, where the party subject to the measure requests its revocation or termination.

The Italian legislature has therefore intervened to recalibrate the rules. The key point is that urgent protection remains fully available and effective, but must be accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. In particular, where the measure significantly affects the other party’s position, it cannot be left in place indefinitely without a subsequent determination on the merits.

This change does not diminish the usefulness of interim measures, which remain an essential tool for the rapid protection of intellectual property rights. However, it reinforces the need to establish a comprehensive litigation strategy from the outset: those who obtain an urgent measure will need to carefully assess whether and when to bring proceedings on the merits; those subject to such a measure, on the other hand, will have a stronger argument for seeking its termination if the other party fails to proceed with the main proceedings.

In practical terms, the decree marks the transition from the almost automatic stability of preliminary injunctions to a stability conditional upon compliance with European safeguards. The swift protection of IP rights remains central, but it cannot be achieved without striking a balance with the right of defence and the need for a full assessment when the interim measure has particularly far-reaching effects.