Italy's IP Reform: A Narrow Window to Challenge Existing Preliminary Injunctions

The CJEU Ruling and Italy's Response

On 23 April 2026, the CJEU held (Case C-132/25, M.M. Ristorazione v. Villa Ramazzini) that the Enforcement Directive prevents national laws from letting preliminary injunctions survive indefinitely when the claimant never starts merits proceedings and the defendant seeks discharge.

The ruling targeted Italy's former regime under Article 132(4) of the Italian Industrial Property Code ("IIPC"), which allowed preliminary injunctions to remain effective indefinitely without any obligation on the right holder to start merits proceedings.

The Italian government promptly complied with the ruling through the Decree. In addition to amending Article 132(4) IIPC and extending the same solution to copyright, the reform introduces a transitional regime for preliminary injunctions granted under the former framework.

The Transitional Regime

The Decree's most immediate practical impact lies in its transitional regime (Article 2(3)), which applies to preliminary injunctions granted before 12 June 2026.

Respondents may now challenge preliminary injunctions that were never followed by merits proceedings by applying for revocation or a declaration of ineffectiveness under Article 669-novies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure ("ICCP"). This must be done within 60 days from 12 June 2026, subject to any applicable suspension of procedural time limits. Where such an application is filed, the court may, upon the right holder's request, reinstate the time limit for commencing merits proceedings while preserving the effectiveness of the original measure.

For both respondents and right holders, the reform creates a limited, yet potentially decisive procedural window that may determine whether longstanding injunctions survive or fall.

For Respondents

For respondents currently subject to preliminary injunctions granted under the previous regime and never followed by merits proceedings, the transitional regime creates a real opportunity to dismantle the measure with retroactive effects.

Within the 60-day deadline, respondents may apply for revocation and a declaration of ineffectiveness under Article 669-novies ICCP. This remedy generally produces ex tunc effects, depriving the injunction of its effectiveness from the outset. This opportunity is extremely time-sensitive: if the deadline is missed, respondents lose this benefit, and the injunction remains in force.

For Right Holders

The transitional regime creates a corresponding risk for right holders who obtained preliminary injunctions under the former regime without commencing merits proceedings: those injunctions are now exposed to revocation.

Accordingly, right holders should be prepared for the possibility that respondents will seek revocation during the transitional period. If that occurs, they should promptly apply for reinstatement of the time limit for commencing proceedings on the merits and institute those proceedings, thereby avoiding the risk that the measure may be declared ineffective with retroactive effect.

However, a right holder may instead wish to consider commencing proceedings on the merits before any revocation application is filed, particularly where it has a specific interest in preserving the injunction or in taking the procedural initiative. By doing so, the right holder may reduce procedural uncertainty and place itself in a stronger position should revocation proceedings subsequently be brought.

The Unresolved Question: Merits Proceedings Already Pending

The transitional mechanism addresses cases where no proceedings on the merits were initiated, but it does not address situations where such proceedings were voluntarily instituted and are still pending.

In these cases, the purpose of the reform—ensuring that interim measures are followed by a determination on the merits—appears to be fulfilled ipso facto. However, since the Decree does not expressly address this scenario, right holders should review pending cases to ensure that the procedural history adequately protects the continuing effectiveness of the measure.

A European Perspective

The CJEU's ruling has implications across the European Union. Major jurisdictions—France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands—already require that provisional measures be followed by merits proceedings and thus appear compliant. However, any Member State whose law permits IP injunctions to subsist without that obligation may face compatibility issues. The immediate priority is Italy, where existing injunctions must be reviewed before the transitional window closes.