Abstract
One locus classicus of comparative analysis, with regard to different approaches to the problem of quantum of damages, is the consistent gap between remedial solutions available in the Italian legal context and those adopted in common law. In the Italian judicial system, as in the majority of civil law systems, the concept of compensation is prevalent, to the exclusion of any function of punishment or sanction; whereas a salient feature of the common law is the principle that no-one should be able to benefit or profit from illicit conduct, so that the use of remedial instruments which include a considerable element of punishment and/or sanction has become over time indispensable. However, setting out a framework which can adapt to unforeseen exigencies, while remaining deeply rooted in the fundamental quest for ‘actual’ justice, calls for a mode of thinking ‘outside the square’, if necessary beyond the usual models. Therefore, although in Italy the area of the law concerned with the workability of a legal instrument capable of giving the victim the possibility to recover the profit accrued by the perpetrator of the illicit act must be compatible with the ‘macro-area’ of compensation for damages, it must be acknowledged that the role of forerunner has been assumed by industrial law that has demonstrated a propensity for investigating and developing innovative legal solutions. For these reasons our field of enquiry will necessarily focus on aspects related to the relationship between the infringement of IPRs and compensatory damages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Knowing full well that the Italian legal system differs considerably from the ensemble of remedies provided by the common law, some of my previous work has given me insight into how, adopting a more flexible approach, it is possible to identify at least two paths [(1) one based on an alternative reading of Art. 1223 c.c., and (2) one relating to the institutions which govern the ‘crisis in contract law’] capable of arriving at a remedial framework which has many similarities with that operating in Anglo-American judicial systems (see P. Pardolesi (2005), 138 et seq.; see also P. Pardolesi (2003), 748 et seq.).
- 2.
- 3.
On this point, see Floridia (2012), 5, 7.
- 4.
- 5.
See Sacco (1959), 114 et seq.
- 6.
For an in-depth examination of these aspects see, once again, Sacco (1959), 114 et seq.
- 7.
See Lo Surdo (2000), 700, 701.
- 8.
The effectiveness of the principle of restitution theorized in this way has not failed to arouse strongly critical comments: see, as one example among many, Lo Surdo (2000), 702 et seq.
- 9.
- 10.
See Trimarchi (1962), 54.
- 11.
- 12.
See Barcellona (2002).
- 13.
See App. Bologna 22 April 1993, in: Foro it., Rep. 1996, item Diritti d’autore, no. 121, and also in: AIDA, 1995, 429. In this sense see also Cass. 24 October 1983 no. 6251, in: Foro it., Rep. 1984, item Diritti d’autore, no. 49 and also in: Dir. autore, 1984, 52; App. Roma 15 February 1958, in: Foro it., Rep. 1958, item Diritti d’autore, no. 21, 22, 86; Cass. 7 August 1950 no. 2423, id., 1951, I, 17. In its original draft Article 158 l.a. states that “a person whose exercise of economic rights to which he is entitled is infringed can take legal action to ensure that the state of affairs that resulted in the infringement be annulled or eliminated or to obtain compensation for the damage”. For the new text of Article 158 l.a. as modified by the d. lgs. of 16 March 2006, no. 140, see, infra, paragraph 3.2.
- 14.
For an interesting reconstruction of the Italian case law in relation to compensation see Plaia (2005), 29 et seq.
- 15.
- 16.
This judgment, brought down on 2 October 1990, appears – as far as can be discovered – not to have been published.
- 17.
See App. Bologna 22 April 1993 cit., 429. On this profile see Attolico (1988), 417 et seq.
- 18.
App. Bologna 22 April 1993 cit., 430.
- 19.
In this regard see Cass. 6251/1983 cit., 54 et seq.
- 20.
See App. Roma 18 April 2005, in: AIDA, 2006, 511.
- 21.
See App. Roma 18 April 2005 cit., 514.
- 22.
App. Milano 26 March 2002, in: AIDA, 2003, 799.
- 23.
In the same vein (in other words, favorable to the application of the criterion of profit obtained by the counterfeiter in the quantification of damages in judgments on industrial property), see App. Milano 22 January 2002, in: AIDA, 2002, 794; Trib. Firenze 9 January 2001, in: Giur. It., 2002, I, 339; Trib. Vicenza 4 September 2000, in: Giur. ann. dir. ind., 2001, 4235; Trib. Milano 31 May 1999, in: AIDA, 2000, 732; Trib. Milano 16 April 1998, id, 564; Trib. Milano, 18 December 1997, in: Dir. autore, 1999, 127; Trib. Roma 9 June 1993, in: Dir. informazione e informatica, 1993, 972.
- 24.
In this regard, a sentence brought down in the Court of Appeals is emblematic: the case related to the market in welding machines (see App. Milano 15 February 1994, in: Giur. ann. dir. ind., 1995, 3222). The court, aware that the case had to do with a limited and specialist market sector, ruled that “those who acquired the machines in question from [the company which carried out the counterfeiting, Fimer], which had neither produced the machines nor brought them to market, would have purchased them from the [company which brought the counterfeiting case, Gen Set]”. Therefore, “although the company had recourse to a criterion of an equitable settlement — legitimated by the evident impossibility of demonstrating with precision how the market would have behaved in a situation different from what actually occurred — it is correct to hypothesize that Gen Set had suffered an injury, due to the loss of sales, equal to the profit obtained by Fimer through the sale of machines which it should not have marketed.”. In other words: “since the number of machines sold by Fimer during the period under consideration (verified by the technical consultant in the lower court) is not contested, it appears to be easy to estimate the liquidated damages (…) by referring to the profit which Fimer itself has obtained (at the expense of Gen Set) by the sale of that number of machines”.
- 25.
Trib. Milano 12 October 1998, in: AIDA, 1999, 618.
- 26.
See Plaia (2005), 45.
- 27.
For a careful analysis of Articles 5–18 of Act 273/2002 see Floridia (2003), 22 et seq.
- 28.
For an incisive analysis of the evolution and logical implications of this article see Floridia (2012), 5 et seq.
- 29.
This is the text of Article 125, as modified by Article 17 d. lgs. on enforcement: “1. The compensation due to the injured party is calculated according to the provisions of Articles 1223, 1226 e 1227 of the civil code, having regard to all relevant aspects of the injured right-holder, such as the negative economic consequences, including loss of earnings, the gains realized by the tortfeasor and, in appropriate cases, elements other than the purely economic, such as moral damage to the proprietor of the right which has been infringed. 2. The judgment awarding compensation can base the calculation of its global amount on the proceedings of the case and the assumptions deriving from them. In this case the lost of profits is in any case determined at an amount not less than the fee that the perpetrator of the infringement would have had to pay had he obtained a license from the injured right-holder. 3. In any case the injured right-holder can ask for disgorgement damages as restitution of the profits obtained by the perpetrator of the infringement, as an alternative to compensation for the loss of profit or by the amount by which those profits exceed such compensation”. For a more in-depth scrutiny of the new addition introduced by the enforcement decree see Floridia (2012), 9 et seq.; Colangelo (2011), 274 et seq.; Albertini (2010), 1149; Di Sabatino (2009), 442; Barbuto (2007), 172; Savorani (2007), 500; Bonelli (2007), 195; Menzetti (2006), 1881; Vanzetti (2006), 323; P. Pardolesi (2006b), 1605.
- 30.
This is how the ‘new’ Art. 158 reads: “1. Whoever is injured in the exercise of a right to economic utilization to which he is entitled may take legal action to ensure, not only that he receive compensation for the damage, but that the state of affairs which led to the infringement be destroyed or removed at the perpetrator’s expense. 2. The compensation due to the injured party is calculated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1223, 1226 and 1227 of the civil code. The lost of profits is assessed by the judge in accordance with Article 2056 of the civil code, second clause, also taking into account the profits obtained by the infringement of the right. The judge can moreover assess damages as a lump sum on the basis at least of the value of the rights which would have been recognized, if the perpetrator of the infringement had asked the right-holder for authorization to use the right. 3. Non-pecuniary damages are also due in accordance with Article 2059 of the civil code.” For a more in-depth analysis of the issues related to Art. 158 l.a. see Colangelo (2011), 93 et seq.; Casaburi (2010), 1194; Di Sabatino (2009), 442; Menzetti (2006), 1881.
- 31.
On this point see Casaburi (2010), 1194.
- 32.
The text of Art. 125 (in the version given by the d. lgs. of 10 February 2005, no. 30) provides that: “the compensation die to the injured party is assessed according to the provisions of Articles 1223, 1226 and 1227 of the civil code. The loss of profit is evaluated by the judge also taking into account the profits obtained by the infringement of the right and the fee that the perpetrator of the infringement would have had to pay in the event that he had obtained authorization from the right-holder.” I seems hardly necessary to point out that in the second clause (of the same Article) it is stated that: “the sentence which awards compensation can, at the request of one of the parties, set the amount as a lump sum established on the basis of the proceedings of the case and of the assumptions deriving from them.”
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
On this point see Casaburi (2010), 1194 et seq.
- 36.
See Menzetti (2006), 1884.
- 37.
Menzetti (2006), 1885.
- 38.
For a more in-depth analysis of this profile see Menzetti (2006), 1884.
- 39.
Casaburi (2010), 1199.
- 40.
Menzetti (2006), 1884.
- 41.
I refer, in particular, to the above-mentioned remedial instrument of disgorgement damages ex Articles 125 C.P.I. and 158 l.a. which is capable of taking as a reference point the profit obtained rather than the loss alone.
- 42.
A concise criticism in relation to Cass. 19 January 2007 no. 1183, in: Foro it., 2007, I, 1460, can be found in Ponzanelli (2007), 1461; P. Pardolesi (2007), 1125. On this profile see also Fava (2007), 497; Giussani (2008), 395; Miotto (2008), 188. For an overall analysis of the vigorous debate about punitive damages I would refer to my own paper P. Pardolesi (2011a), 59.
- 43.
“[I]n the current system the idea of punishment and sanction is extraneous to compensation, as is the conduct of the person causing the injury. Civil responsibility is required to take on the principle task of restoring the assets of the person who has suffered the injury, by means of the payment of a sum of money intended to eradicate the consequences of the injury suffered. And that is the case for any type of injury, including non-economic or moral injury; for compensation for this type of injury, precisely because it may not involve punitive objectives, not only are the state of need of the injured party and the economic capacity of the respondent irrelevant, but there also must be proof of the existence of suffering caused by the wrongful act, through the identification of concrete circumstances from which to presume cause, given that such a proof cannot be assumed to be self-evident in re ipsa”: Cass. 1183/2007 cit., 1460.
- 44.
See infra, paragraphs 6., 6.1., 6.2., 6.3. and 6.4.
- 45.
On this point see P. Pardolesi (2012a), 132 et seq.
- 46.
Cass. 11 May 2010, no. 11353, in: Foro it., 2011, I, 540 (with a note by P Pardolesi (2011b)).
- 47.
Cass. 15 April 2011 no. 8730, in: Foro it., 2011, I, 3073 (with a note by P. Pardolesi (2011c)).
- 48.
Cass. 11353/2010 cit., 540.
- 49.
On this point see, supra, paragraph 3.2.
- 50.
Specifically, the controversy in question consisted of the unlawful broadcasting of a television series by companies which colluded at the expense of the plaintiff company which had acquired the exclusive rights of economic utilization over the whole country (see Cass. 8730/2011 op. cit., 3073).
- 51.
In relation to the concept of unlawful enrichment by means of illicit actions see paragraph 2.
- 52.
Cass. 8730/2011 cit., 3073.
- 53.
Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that a very recent judgment (see Cass. 17 February 2012 no. 1781, in: Corriere giur., 2012, 1068, with a note by P Pardolesi (2012b)) saw a counter-intuitive about-face by our Supreme Court in denying the exequatur of a judgment brought down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (which called for compensation for injury suffered by a worker, in the amount of five million dollars—raised to more than eight million dollars due to a very high rate of interest—against an Italian company which produced a defective machine) which had been approved by the Court of Appeal of Torino. More specifically, what raised much perplexity were the reasons given by the Supreme Court for its decision to deny the exequatur: in fact, irrespective of the lack of any reference to the concept of punitive damages, granting such a large sum would appear in any case to manifest a punitive leaning foreign to the Italian legal system (not forgetting, furthermore, that the absence of any indication as to the criteria adopted in the North American judgment to arrive at the amount of compensation made it impossible to verify whether the judgment did or did not contain aspects in relation to damages not admitted in the Italian system). For an incisive analysis of the critical aspects of this judgment, see Ponzanelli (2012), 613.
- 54.
In this regard it is useful to point out how recently not only legal scholarship but also the Supreme Court (cfr. Cass. 19499/2008 op. cit., 2786) have been moved to re-consider the applicability of the instrument of disgorgement damages in the context of contracts as well. For a closer examination of the peculiarities underlying such a decision see, infra, paragraph 6.4.
- 55.
On this point see, supra, paragraph 2.2.
- 56.
Floridia (2003), 10.
- 57.
Proof of this can be seen in the fact that the court pointed out in strong terms that the effects of the injury arising from the illicit use of a registered trademark (that is “the loss of market share, in terms of diminishing – or more slowly increasing – turnover”, as well as the “tarnishing of the brand caused by the commercialization – with the counterfeit label – of products of inferior quality”) must be “alleged and proved by the injured right-owner” (as in the judgment of the Trib. Genova of 23 February 2011, in: Danno e resp., 2012, 788, with a note by P Pardolesi (2012c)).
- 58.
Trib. Genova 23 February 2011 cit., 788.
- 59.
Floridia (2003), 10.
- 60.
Consider of the case in which a builder – having signed a contract with a client for the construction of a building, setting a high contract price because it involved using a particularly high quality material – decides to substitute for it a material of much lower, even shoddy, quality (thus realizing a substantial cost saving), without however reducing the contract sum. In such a context problems arise when the buyer, at the moment of selling the building, finds out that, because of the use of the alternative material ‘cunningly’ chosen by the builder, not only has the market price of the building been substantially reduced, but that replacing it eventually with the material originally specified would entail spending an amount equal to half the total cost of the building itself, because of the costs involved in the partial demolition and reconstruction of the building. This is how, as described by Farnsworth (1985), 1382, on the assumption that the court would in all probability decide to exact compensation in a sum corresponding to the reduction in the market price of the building, the plaintiff would run the serious risk of ending up with a defective building and with the practical impossibility of achieving any compensation for the damage.
- 61.
On this profile see, supra, paragraphs 3.1. and 3.2.
- 62.
This is the substance of Article 709 ter c.p.c. (Resolution of disputes and provisions in the case of default or infringement): “(1) For the resolution of disputes between the parents in relation to the exercise of parental authority or the arrangements for custody the competent authority is the judge presiding in the proceedings underway. For proceedings referred to in Article 710 the competent forum is the tribunal of the minor’s place of residence. (2) When a case is brought to court, the judge summons the parties and adopts the most appropriate provisions. In the case of serious breaches or of actions which might be prejudicial to the welfare of the minor, or constitute obstacles to the correct implementation of the arrangements for child custody, can modify the existing arrangements and can, do any or all of the following: 1) reprimand the defaulting parent; 2) make a compensation order against one of the parents on behalf of the minor; 3) make a compensation order against one of the parents on behalf of the other; 4) sentence the defaulting parent to the payment of a pecuniary administrative fine, from a minimum of 75 euro to a maximum of 5.000 euro to be paid into the Cassa delle ammende. The provisions laid down by the presiding judge can be appealed in the normal way.”
For a more in-depth analysis of the measures related to Art. 709 ter c.p.c. see Figone (2008), 799; La Rosa (2008), 64; Facci (2008), 1026; Cassano (2008), 498; Farolfi (2009), 610; Astiggiano (2011), 574; De Salvo (2012), 613; Paladini (2012), 853.
- 63.
The rationale for this is the objective of guaranteeing that children can grow up in a balanced and harmonious way in an environment of family collaboration, no longer centered on the continuity of the family unit but focused on the enhancement of their relationships with their parents. For an incisive analisys of the provision introduced by the Act of 8 February 2006, no. 54, see Patti and Rossi Carleo (2006); Graziosi (2006), 1856; De Filippis (2006); Marino (2007); Finocchiaro and Poli (2007), 532.
- 64.
La Rosa (2008), 64.
- 65.
See La Rosa (2008), 70.
- 66.
“[I]n setting the level of compensation it is necessary first to consider the seriousness of the defaulting parent’s conduct, taking into account also the fact that the remedies set out in Art. 709 ter c.p.c. have essentially punitive objectives, and there is no requirement for a specific proof of the existence of injury, which can be considered a natural consequence of the unacceptable behavior of one of the parents.” Trib. Messina 8 October 2012, in: Danno e resp., 2013, 409 (with a note by P Pardolesi (2013).
- 67.
La Rosa (2008), 72.
- 68.
For an introduction to how the payment of compensation can enhance the function of both punishment and sanction ex Art. 709 ter c.p.c. see D’Angelo (2006), 1048; Casaburi (2006), 565; Graziosi (2006), 1884; Salvaneschi (2006), 152; De Marzo (2006), 90. However, it should be noted that alongside this interpretive option it is also possible to identify two different approaches: I) the first emphasizes the pre-eminence of an approach based on compensation (on this point see Greco (2006), 1199)) the second on the other hand, adopting an intermediate position, not only recognizes the restorative function of compensation but at the same time does not deny its purpose as sanction [see Trib. Reggio Emilia 5 November 2007 no. 1435, in: Fam. pers. succ., 2008, 74].
- 69.
Trib. Messina 8 October 2012 cit., 409.
- 70.
Trib. Messina 8 October 2012 cit., 409.
- 71.
See Janniti-Piromallo (1957), 121.
- 72.
On this profile see Baratella (2001), 287 et seq.
- 73.
On this point see Zeno Zencovich (1983), 40.
- 74.
Cass. 10 June 2005, no. 12299, in: Foro it., Rep. 2005, item Responsabilità civile, no. 225; Cass. 7 November 2000, no. 14485, in: Giur. it., 2001, 1360; Cass. 3 October 1997, no. 9672, in: Giur. it., 1998, 2276; Trib. Roma, 31 October 2002, in: Giust. Civ., 2003, 1936.
- 75.
Cass. 29 January 1965, no. 2300, in: Giur. it., 1966, I, 726.
- 76.
See Cass. pen. 11 April 1986, in: Foro it., Rep. 1987, item Stampa ed editoria, no. 85, and in full in: Resp. Civ., 1987, 85.
- 77.
Cass. pen. 15 March 2002, in: Foro it., Rep. 2002, item Ingiuria, no. 68. In this sense see App. Milano 16 April 2004, id., Rep. 2004, item Stampa ed editoria, no. 11.
- 78.
See d. lgs. 3 April 2006 no. 152 [known as the Environmental Law (Codice dell’Ambiente)] setting out the “regulations for compensatory protection against environmental damage”, which implemented the legge delega no. 308/2004 on the environment as well as the directive 2004/35/EC of the European parliament and Council of 21 April 2004, on environmental responsibility in relation to the prevention and reparation of environmental damage.
- 79.
- 80.
This is the text of the Clause Six of Art. 18 of Act 349/1986: “the judge, when a precise assessment of the damage is not possible, shall determine the sum equitably, having regard to the seriousness of the individual culpability, to the necessary cost of reparation, and to the profit obtained by the law-breaker as a result of his environmentally destructive behavior.”
- 81.
The innovations introduced by the d.lgs. 152/2006 do not convince Prati (2006), 1049.
- 82.
This is the text of Art. 311 contained in Section III of Part Six of the d.lgs. 152/2006: “1) The Minister for the Environment and the Protection of the Territory [Ministro dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio] acts, even taking civil action in the penal justice system, in the interests of the restoration of the actual environmental damage and, if necessary, by a pecuniary equivalent, or else proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Part Six of the present decree. 2) Whoever, by committing an illegal act, or by neglecting to carry out an obligatory activity or behavior, constituting a violation of a law, of a regulation, or of a technical rule, causes damage to the environment, altering it, despoiling it or destroying it in whole or in part, is required to restore it to its preceding condition and, if this is not possible, to provide compensation in terms of a pecuniary equivalent in favor of the State. 3) For the assessment of the damage, the Minister for the Environment will apply the criteria enunciated in Attachments 3 and 4 of Part Six of the present decree. For the assessment of the responsibility for compensation and for the collection of the sums due as pecuniary equivalent the Minister for the Environment follows the procedures as set out in Section III of Part Six of the present decree.“
- 83.
On this point see Feola (1996), 1078.
- 84.
For an analysis of these aspects, see, once again, Prati (2006), 1052 et seq.
- 85.
Cass., sez. un., 16 July 2008, no. 19499, in: Foro it., 2008, I, 2786 (with a note by R. Pardolesi (2008)).
- 86.
I refer to Cass., sez. un., 4 July 1979, no. 3776, in: Foro it., 1979, I, 2622 (with a note by R Pardolesi (1979)) and to Cass., sez. un., 5 April 1986, no. 2368, in: Foro it., 1986, I, 1265 (with a note by R. Pardolesi (1986)) in which the Italian Supreme Court – seeking, on the one hand, to put an end to a heated argument and, on the other, to reduce the evident embarrassment of the relevant area of jurisprudence about an approach which, characterized by a rigorous attitude to the evidence to be provided by the disappointed creditor, ended by removing from consideration the damage caused by devaluation – dictated the conditions for consideration of “further damage” according to paragraph 2 of Art. 1224 c.c., due to the debased purchasing power of the currency.
- 87.
For an incisive analysis of this matter, see, once again, R. Pardolesi (2008), 2789 et seq.
- 88.
For an in-depth examination of these aspects see R. Pardolesi (2008), 2789.
- 89.
On this point see R. Pardolesi (1979), 2624 et seq.
- 90.
In this type of controversy, the prize probably goes to the celebrated Meroni case (Cass. 26 January 1971 no. 174, Foro it., 1971, I, 342; 29 May 1978 no. 1459, id., 1979, I, 827), which relates to the issue of extra-contractual liability, but is symptomatic of a more general concern. This painful affair had a double outcome: on the one hand (in the perspective whether there existed liability), it affirmed and consolidated the possibility of bringing the protection of credit as one of the interests safeguarded by Art. 2043 c.c., while, as far as the quantum was concerned, the result was a total failure. The Supreme Court did not succeed in establishing any type of compensation: in the first place, because – compared with the year in which Meroni played – subscriptions had increased, and, secondly, since the Torino football club, replacing a famous (and expensive) player such as Meroni with the more modest Facchin, saved money by the engagement, and thus ended up with an economic advantage.
- 91.
For an in-depth examination of these issues two theoretical models deserve attention – at least as far as the response they have elicited is concerned: those set up, on the one hand, by Kull, around the appropriation and extension of the concept of restitution (Kull (2008)), and on the other, by Eisenberg, on a broad interpretation of section 344 of Restatement Second of Contracts (Eisenberg (2006), 599). It would also be useful to highlight the acceptance at a more specifically pragmatic level of the instrument of disgorgement damages as a remedy for breach of contract. In fact, section 39 emerges in the interstices of the Restatement [Third] of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (American Law Institute (2011)); the section expressly provides for the ‘bold remedy’ of disgorgement damages to address the possibility of “profit derived from opportunistic breach”.
- 92.
Think of the predictability of the injury and its irrelevance in the event that the breach is found to be criminal.
Bibliography
Albertini, L. 2010. Restituzione e trasferimento dei profitti nella tutela della proprietà industriale (con un cenno al diritto d’autore). Contratto e impr.: 1149 et seq.
American Law Institute. 2011. Restatement (third) of restitution and unjust enrichment. St. Paul: American Law Institute.
Astiggiano, F. 2011. L’art. 709 ter c.p.c. tra posizioni dottrinali ed applicazioni giurisprudenziali; in particolare, i mezzi di gravame. Famiglia e dir.: 574 et seq.
Attolico, L. 1988 Requisiti di tutelabilità dell’opera di elaborazione e di collaborazione e azione risarcitoria. Dir. autore: 410 et seq.
Auteri, P. 2004. Il risarcimento del danno da lesione del diritto d’autore. In: AA. VV. Risarcimento del danno da illecito concorrenziale e da lesione della proprietà intellettuale. Giuffrè, Milan, pp. 353 et seq.
Baratella, M.G. 2001. La riparazione pecuniaria. Resp. comunicazione e impresa, 1: 287 et seq.
Barbuto, M. 2007. Il risarcimento dei danni da contraffazione di brevetto e la restituzione degli utili. Riv. dir. ind.: 172 et seq.
Barcellona, P. 1970. Frutti e profitto d’impresa. Milan: Giuffrè.
Barcellona, P. 2002. La lesione della proprietà intellettuale come conflitto non aquiliano. A paper presented in Palermo, 7 February 2002, as part of a course in general private law.
Bonelli, G. 2007. L’attuazione della direttiva enforcement nel diritto d’autore. Dir. ind.: 195 et seq.
Busnelli, F.D. 1988. La parabola della responsabilità civile. RCDP: 643 et seq.
Casaburi, G. 2006. La legge sull’affido condiviso (ovvero, forse, tanto rumore per nulla). Corr. merito: 565 et seq.
Casaburi, G. 2010. Il risarcimento del danno nel diritto d’autore. Giur. Merito: 1194 et seq.
Cassano, G. 2008. In tema di danni endofamiliari: la portata dell’art. 709 ter, comma 2, c.p.c. ed i danni prettamente “patrimoniali” fra congiunti: Dir. Famiglia: 498 et seq.
Castronovo, C. 2003. La violazione della proprietà industriale come lesione del potere di disposizione. Dal danno all’arricchimento. Dir. ind.: 7 et seq.
Colangelo, G. 2011. Diritto comparato della proprietà intellettuale. Bologna: Il Mulino.
D’Angelo, A. 2006. Il risarcimento del danno come sanzione? Alcune riflessioni sul nuovo art. 709-ter c.p.c. Familia: 1048 et seq.
De Filippis, B. 2006. L’affidamento condiviso dei figli nella separazione e nel divorzio. Padova: Cedam.
De Marzo, G. 2006. L’affidamento condiviso-I profili sostanziali. Foro it., V: 90 et seq.
De Salvo, N. 2012. Il risarcimento del danno ex art. 709 ter, comma 2, n. 2, c.p.c. come pena privata. Famiglia e dir.: 613 et seq.
De Sanctis, V.M., and M. Fabiani. 2000. I contratti di diritto di autore. In: Trattato di diritto civile e commerciale. Giuffré, Milan, pp. 150 et seq.
Di Sabatino, E. 2009. Proprietà intellettuale, risarcimento del danno e restituzione del profitto. Resp. civ.: 442 et seq.
Eisenberg, M.A. 2006. The disgorgement interest in contract law. Mich. L. Rev. 105: 559 et seq.
Facci, G. 2008. L’art. 709 ter c.p.c., l’illecito endofamiliare ed i danni punitivi. Famiglia e dir.: 1026 et seq.
Farnsworth, E.A. 1985. Your loss or my gain? The dilemma of the disgorgement principle in breach of contract. Yale L. J. 94: 1339 et seq.
Farolfi, F. 2009. L’art. 709 ter c.p.c.: sanzione civile con finalità preventiva e punitiva?. Famiglia e dir.: 610 et seq.
Fava, P. 2007. Punitive damages e ordine pubblico: la cassazione blocca lo sbarco. Corriere giur.: 497 et seq.
Feola, D. 1996. Analisi della disciplina ex art. 18 l. 349/86 in materia di danno ambientale ed evoluzioni giurisprudenziali: Resp. civ.: 1078 et seq.
Figone, A. 2008. In tema di risarcimento del danno ex art. 709 ter c.p.c. Danno e resp.: 799 et seq.
Finocchiaro, G., and E. Poli. 2007. Esecuzione dei provvedimenti di affidamento dei minori. In: Digesto civ., I, Utet, Turin, 532 et seq.
Floridia, G. 2003. Il riordino della proprietà industriale (Legge 12 dicembre 2002, no. 273). Dir. ind.: 22 et seq.
Floridia, F. 2012. Risarcimento del danno e reversione degli utili nella disciplina della proprietà industriale. Dir. ind.: 5 et seq.
Frassi, P.A.E. 2000. I danni patrimoniali. Dal lucro cessante al danno emergente. AIDA: 93 et seq.
Gallo, P. 1996. Pene private e responsabilità civile. Milan: Guiffrè.
Gitti, G. 2000. Il “possesso di beni immateriali” e la riversione dei frutti. AIDA: 152 et seq.
Giussani, A. 2008. Resistenze al riconoscimento delle condanne al pagamento dei punitive damages: antichi dogmi e nuove realtà. Giust. civ.: 395 et seq.
Graziosi, A. 2006. Profili processuali della L. n. 54 del 2006 sul cd. affidamento condiviso dei figli. Dir. Famiglia: 1856 et seq.
Greco, A. 2006. Affido condiviso, (l. 54/2006) e ipotesi di responsabilità civile. Resp. civ. prev.: 1199 et seq.
Greco, P., and Vercellone, P. 1974. I diritti sulle opere di ingegno. In: Trattato di diritto civile. Utet, Turin, pp. 347 et seq.
Guglielmetti, G. 2000. La gestione di affari e la riversione degli utili. AIDA: 174 et seq.
Guglielmetti, G. 2002. La determinazione del danno da contraffazione di brevetto. Riv. dir. ind.: 251 et seq.
Janniti-Piromallo, A. 1957. La legge sulla stampa. Rome: Jandi Sapi Editori.
Kull, A. 2001. Disgorgement for breach, the “restitution interest”, and the restatement of contracts. 79 Tex. L. Rev.: 2021 et seq.
La Rosa, E. 2008. Il nuovo apparato rimediale introdotto dall’art. 709 ter c.p.c. I danni punitivi approdano in famiglia?. Famiglia e dir.: 64 et seq.
Lo Surdo, C. 2000. Arricchimento e lesione del potere di disposizione in merito ad una recente indagine. Danno e resp.: 700 et seq.
Marino, M. 2007. L’affidamento condiviso dei figli. Milan: Le comete.
Menzetti, C.E. 2006. Il risarcimento del danno fra vecchio e “nuovo” diritto della proprietà intellettuale: utili, benefeci e meriti come rimedi di liquidazione. Giur. it.: 1881 et seq.
Miotto, G. 2008. La funzione del risarcimento dei danni non patrimoniali nel sistema della responsabilità civile. Resp. civ.: 188 et seq.
Paladini, M. 2012. Misure sanzionatorie per l’attuazione dei provvedimenti riguardo ai figli, tra responsabilità civile, punitive damages e astreinte. Famiglia e dir.: 853 et seq.
Pardolesi, R. 1979. Interessi moratori e maggior danno da svalutazione: appunti di analisi economica del diritto. Foro it., I: 2622 et seq.
Pardolesi, R. 1986. Le sezioni unite su debiti di valuta e inflazione: orgoglio (teorico) e pregiudizio (economico). Foro it., I: 1265 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2003. Rimedi all’inadempimento contrattuale: un ruolo per il disgorgement? Riv. dir. civ., I: 717 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2005. Profitto illecito e risarcimento del danno. Trento: Quaderni Dip. scienze giuridiche.
Pardolesi, P. 2006a. Arricchimento da fatto illecito: dalle sortite giurisprudenziali ai tormentati slanci del legislatore. Riv. critica dir. priv.: 523 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2006b. Un’innovazione in cerca d’identità: il nuovo art. 125. Corriere giur.: 1605 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2007. Danni punitivi all’indice. Danno e resp.: 1125 et seq.
Pardolesi, R. 2008. Debiti di valuta, “danno da svalutazione” (e il “disgorgement” che non t’aspetti). Foro it., I: 2789 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2011a. I punitive damages nell’ordinamento italiano. In: Pardolesi P (ed.) Seminari di diritto privato comparato. Cacucci, Bari, pp. 59 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2011b. Abusivo sfruttamento d’immagine e danni punitivi. Foro it., I: 540 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2011c. Violazione del diritto d’autore e risarcimento punitivo/sanzionatorio. Foro it., I: 3073 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2012a. Contratto e nuove frontiere rimediali. Disgorgement v. punitive damages. Caducci Editore, Bari.
Pardolesi, P. 2012b. La Cassazione, i danni punitivi e la natura polifunzionale della responsabilità civile: il triangolo no! Corriere giur.: 1068 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2012c. Retroversione degli utili da uso illecito di marchio registrato: come si applica, come si quantifica. Danno e resp.: 788 et seq.
Pardolesi, P. 2013. Vocazione sanzionatoria dell’art. 709 ter c.p.c. e natura polifunzionale della responsabilità civile. Danno e resp.: 409 et seq.
Patti, S. 1995. Voce Pena Privata. In: Digesto it., V, Utet, Turin, pp. 335 et seq.
Patti, S., and L. Rossi Carleo. 2006. L’affidamento condiviso. Milan: Giuffrè.
Plaia, A. 2005. Proprietà intellettuale e risarcimento del danno. Turin: Giappichelli.
Ponzanelli, G. 2007. Danni punitivi: no grazie. Foro it., I: 1461 et seq.
Ponzanelli, G. 2012. La Cassazione bloccata da un risarcimento non riparatorio. Danno e resp.: 609 et seq.
Prati, L. 2006. Le criticità del nuovo danno ambientale: il confuso approccio del “Codice dell’Ambiente”. Danno e resp.: 1049 et seq.
Sacco, R. 1959. L’arricchimento ottenuto mediante fatto ingiusto. Turin: Utet.
Salvaneschi, L. 2006. I procedimenti di separazione e divorzio. In: AA. VV. Il processo civile di riforma in riforma, I. Giuffrè, Milan, pp. 152 et seq.
Savorani, G. 2007. Rimedi civilistici dopo la direttiva enforcement. Danno e resp.: 500 et seq.
Sirena, P. 2000. La gestione di affari altrui – Ingerenze altruistiche, ingerenze egoistiche e restituzione del profitto. Turin: Giappichelli.
Trimarchi, P. 1962. L’arricchimento senza causa. Milan: Giuffrè.
Trimarchi, P. 1994. L’arricchimento derivante da atto illecito. In: Studi in onore di Rodolfo Sacco, II. Giuffrè, Milan, pp. 1147 et seq.
Trimarchi, P. 2010. Il contratto: inadempimento e rimedi. Milan: Giuffrè.
Troiano, O. 2000. La tutela del diritto di autore attraverso la disciplina dell’arricchimento ingiustificato. AIDA: 207 et seq.
Vanzetti, A. 2006. La “restituzione degli utili” di cui all’art. 125, no. 3, C.P.I. nel diritto dei marchi. Dir. ind.: 323 et seq.
Zeno Zencovich, V. 1983. Il risarcimento esemplare per diffamazione nel diritto americano e la riparazione pecuniaria ex art. 12 della legge sulla stampa. Resp. civ.: 40 et seq.
List of Cases
Trib. Messina 8 October 2012, in: Danno e resp., 2013, 409
Cass. 17 February 2012 no. 1781, in: Corriere giur., 2012, 1068
Cass. 15 April 2011 no. 8730, in: Foro it., 2011, I, 3073
Trib. Genova of 23 February 2011, in: Danno e resp., 2012, 788
Cass. 11 May 2010, no. 11353, in: Foro it., 2011, I, 540
Cass., sez. u no., 16 July 2008, no. 19499, in: Foro it., 2008, I, 2786
Trib. Reggio Emilia 5 November 2007 no. 1435, in: Fam. pers. succ., 2008, 74
Cass. 19 January 2007 no. 1183, in: Foro it., 2007, I, 1460
Cass. 10 June 2005, no. 12299, in: Foro it., Rep. 2005, item Responsabilità civile, no. 225
App. Roma 18 April 2005, in: IDA, 511
App. Milano 16 aprile 2004, in: Foro it., Rep. 2004, item Stampa ed editoria, no. 11
Trib. Roma, 31 October 2002, in: Giust. Civ., 2003, 1936
App. Milano 26 March 2002, in: AIDA, 2003, 799
Cass. pen. 15 March 2002, in: Foro it., Rep. 2002, item Ingiuria, no. 68
App. Milano 22 January 2002, in: AIDA, 2002, 794
Trib. Firenze 9 January 2001, in: Giur. it., 2002, I, 339
Cass. 7 November 2000, no. 14485, in: Giur. it., 2001, 1360
Trib. Vicenza 4 September 2000, in: Giur. ann. dir. ind., 4235;
Trib. Milano 12 October 1998, in: AIDA, 1999, 618
Trib. Milano 16 April 1998, in: AIDA, 564
Trib. Milano, 18 December 1997, in: Dir. autore, 1999, 127
Cass. 3 October 1997, no. 9672, in: Giur. it., 1998, 2276
App. Bologna 22 April 1993, in: Foro it., Rep. 1996, item Diritti d’autore, no. 121
Trib. Roma 9 June 1993, in: Dir. informazione e informatica, 1993, 972
Cass. pen. 11 April 1986, in: Resp. Civ., 1987, 85
Cass., sez. un., 5 April 1986, no. 2368, in: Foro it., 1986, I, 1265
Cass. 24 October 1983 no. 6251, in: Dir. autore, 1984, 52
Cass., sez. un., 4 July 1979, no. 3776, in: Foro it., 1979, I, 1668
Cass. 29 May 1978 no. 1459, id., 1979, I, 827
Cass. 26 January 1971 no. 174, in: Foro it., 1971, I, 342
Cass. 29 January 1965, no. 2300, in: Giur. it., 1966, I, 726
App. Roma 15 February 1958, in: Foro it., Rep. 1958, item Diritti d’autore, no. 21
Cass. 7 August 1950 no. 2423, in: Foro it., 1951, I, 17
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pardolesi, P. (2015). An Italian Way to Disgorgement of Profits?. In: Hondius, E., Janssen, A. (eds) Disgorgement of Profits. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18758-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18759-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)