Can a newspaper’s name be reused? (Milan Court, order of 29 December 2025)

The Court notes that “the comparison between the two titles, together with all the relevant characteristics indicated above, including typefaces, style and colours, point to the suitability of the reproduction to create confusion”.

This is not just an abstract impression. On social networks – Facebook and Instagram – comments begin to appear from readers complaining about unrecognised subscriptions, delays and service issues, convinced they are interacting with the historic Motociclismo d’Epoca.

The company managing the liquidation procedure reacts with a cease-and-desist letter. The response from the new publisher is negative. The matter therefore goes to court, with an interim application seeking an injunction against use of the title, removal from social media, the imposition of penalties and publication of the court order.

The law requires a two-year standstill (Article 100 of the Copyright Act)

The first pillar of the decision is a provision that rarely features in public debate, but which is decisive here: Article 100(4) of the Italian Copyright Act (Law No. 633/1941).

The rule provides that, for periodicals, the title may not be reproduced in other works of the same type until two years have elapsed from the cessation of publication. This is a rule that does not reason in psychological terms (“are people confused?”) but in temporal ones: protection applies because the legislature presumes that, within that time span, the title still retains evocative power and economic and reputational value.

For this very reason, chronology becomes decisive in the order. The Court reconstructs the two endpoints: the last issue of Motociclismo d’Epoca was published in April 2024; Nuovo Motociclismo d’Epoca appeared on newsstands in June 2025. In between there is no “liberating” gap, but a protected interval. The two-year period has not elapsed and the consequence, for the judge, is straightforward: the title is not available for use by third parties, even if the magazine is no longer being published.

The respondent attempts to shift the focus to the idea that the title was “inactive” and therefore essentially devoid of distinctive force; but this is precisely the point of Article 100: it does not require the publication to be active today, it requires that a certain amount of time has not passed since its cessation. The protection is designed to prevent the end (even a temporary one) of a periodical from becoming the perfect opportunity for a nominal hooking operation: take a well-known title, add the word “new”, and present oneself to the public as its natural continuation.

In the background, moreover, there is a fact that the order does not overlook: the company owning the title is in judicial liquidation and therefore has a concrete interest in preserving the value of its assets, also with a view to a possible sale or relaunch; and it is precisely for this reason that protection of the title during the two-year period takes on practical, not merely theoretical, weight.

When two magazines “look” the same, is there unfair competition?

The second pillar of the order concerns not only the “name” but the overall identity of the publication. Here, Article 102 of the Copyright Act comes into play, which prohibits imitation of the external appearance of newspapers and periodicals when it is likely to create confusion, together with Article 2598(1) of the Civil Code, which classifies as unfair competition the use of distinctive signs and conduct likely to cause confusion with a competitor’s business. In the Court’s approach, the point is not to protect an isolated detail, but to prevent someone from presenting themselves on the market with an overall “outfit” so similar that it can be mistaken for someone else’s.

It is significant that the order does not stop at formulas (“likelihood of confusion”, “similarity”), but focuses on what the reader actually sees. The judge highlights a series of graphic elements which, taken individually, might even appear neutral, but which, considered together, produce an effect of immediate recognisability: typefaces, colours, the way the word “motociclismo” is composed (with its distinctive breakdown), the position and rendering of the wording “d’epoca”, down to details such as the particular design of certain letters. The reasoning lies precisely in the overall effect: imitation is not (only) an aesthetic matter, it is a functional one, because it guides public perception.

Giving substance to this assessment is not only the abstract “likelihood” of confusion, but concrete evidence already emerging in reality, especially on social media. The Court refers to comments in which some users address the new magazine as if it were the continuation of the previous one, with complaints and requests typical of those who believe they are interacting with the “historic” publication. This is an important passage because it translates a legal concept – confusion – into a verifiable fact.

What role does trademark registration play in these cases?

In an attempt to shift the focus of the proceedings, the respondent builds a “two-track” defence aimed at weakening the very foundations of the protection claimed.

On the one hand, it challenges the existence of a competitive relationship, arguing that the claimant – being in judicial liquidation and having ceased publication – no longer operates on the publishing market and therefore cannot complain of competitive conduct.

On the other hand, it seeks to “cover” the choice of title and distinctive sign with the trademark application/registration filed in 2025, presenting it as an element capable of legitimising the use of Nuovo Motociclismo d’Epoca and excluding any unlawfulness.

The Court, however, considers both arguments insufficient.

As to the first point, it clarifies that competition may exist even when a party is subject to insolvency proceedings, because what matters is the concrete interest in preserving and enhancing assets (including the title) with a view to sale to third parties or a possible continuation of the business; the temporary absence from newsstands does not therefore equate to a “legal” exit from the market.

As to the second point, it notes that trademark registration (or an application for registration) occurring at a later date is not a kind of automatic cure-all, because it does not override the special protections provided by the Copyright Act (in particular Articles 100 and 102) nor does it neutralise prior use and the distinctive history of the sign, especially in a context where the risk of confusion is assessed in concrete terms.

In short, the cessation of publication does not result in any automatic “release” of the title, nor does the filing/registration of a trademark, in itself, suffice to overcome already accrued protections and interference with a pre-existing editorial identity.

The newspaper title as an intangible and reputational asset

The Court starts from a simple idea: when the public begins to confuse two editorial products, the damage does not remain “small” and does not remain “temporary”. When the market consists of loyal readers and recognisable signs, confusion is not an occasional incident, but a process that tends to feed on itself. The more the new magazine circulates with a title and graphic appearance perceived as a “continuation”, the more the misunderstanding becomes entrenched; and once entrenched, it cannot be removed with a simple disclaimer.

It is in this perspective that the judge identifies the typical harm: not only the immediate loss of sales, but above all the erosion of the distinctive value of the title, the contamination of a reputation built over time and the weakening of an asset which, in insolvency proceedings, must be preserved also with a view to realisation.

Hence the confirmation of the urgent measures already adopted: the injunction against use of the title (with a penalty of €1,000 for each violation), the order to remove the title from Facebook, Instagram and the website (with a penalty of €1,000 for each day of delay, starting after the deadline granted for compliance), and – a choice that is not merely symbolic – publication of the operative part of the order on the respondent’s website for fifteen days and in a sector magazine designated by the claimant.

What ultimately closes the case, however, goes beyond the individual title. The order does not protect only a name: it protects the distinction between what is genuine continuity and what merely imitates its effect. This, ultimately, is the boundary reaffirmed by the Court: one may enter a sector and address the same audience, but one must do so with one’s own name and image, not by exploiting confusion with what the public already knows.