1. D EFENSE O F F ERRERO B RANDS A GAINST P ARASITIC C OPYING I N E UROPEAN C IVIL L AW J URISDICTIONS London 30/03/2010

2. OUTLINE 1.HOW WE PROTECT OUR BRANDS 2.WHAT CHALLENGES WE FACE 3.HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS 4. LEARNINGS

3. 1. HOW WE PROTECT OUR BRANDS  Registered Trademarks : words, devices, 3 D

4. 1. HOW WE PROTECT OUR BRANDS  Industrial Designs :

5. 2. WHAT CHALLENGES WE FACE  ‘False’ products (e.g. apparel, fashion, watches) : No  Device TM/ Design Infringements : Yes  Parasitic Copying / Unfair Competition : Yes

6. 2. WHAT CHALLENGES WE FACE  ‘False’ products (e.g. apparel, fashion, watches) : No  Device TM/ Design infringements : Yes  Parasitic Copying / Unfair Competition : Yes

7. 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Statutory A. ‘’IP Law’’ : Primarily : Registered Trademarks (designs) (a) Specific norms applicable to IP (Italy, Spain) B. ‘’Unfair Competition’’ or (b) General ‘liability for harmful, unethical acts’ (France)

8. A. ‘’IP Law’’ : Examples - EC Directive 89/104 (Art. 5)Italian IP Code (Art. 20) - EC Regulation 40/94 (Art.9)French IP Code (L – 713) - TRIPS (Art. 16)Spanish Ley de Marcas (Art. 34) Etc… ‘The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the tradmark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of Members making rights available on the basis of use.’ 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Statutory

9. B.Unfair Competition : a – Specific Norms (i) Italy : Art. 2598 Civil Code ‘Notwithstanding the legal provisions on the protection of intellectual property rights … a person commits acts of unfair competition if he/she : 1) uses names or distinctive signs capable of producing confusion vis-à-vis the names or distinctive signs lawfully used by others, or imitates a competitor’s products in a slavish way, or performs, with any other means, actions that are capable of creating confusion with the products and activities of a competitor……’ (ii) Spain : Ley de Competencia Desleal 3/1991 Art. 6 – (unfair behaviour likely to cause confusion with a competitor’s activity) Art. 11.2 – (imitation of a competitor’s initiatives capable of creating association with him or unfairly exploiting his reputation and efforts) Art. 12 – (undue profiting of the benefits that a third party derives from his industrial or commercial reputation) 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Statutory Cf. Paris Convention Art. 10 bis

10. B.Unfair Competition : b – General liability for harmful / unethical acts (i) France, Civil Code Art. 1382 ‘Any act of a person which causes harm to another obliges the person who commits it to repair the damage caused’ Art. 1383 « Any one is responsible for the harm which he causes not only intentionally but also as a result of his negligence or his imprudence ’. 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Statutory

11. (1) France Cour d’Appel de Versailles 6/9/2007 Ferrero S.p.A. v. Agrodeal  Trademarks :ROCHER (3 D IR. 783.985) v. ROCHERS, ROCHERS II, CELEBRITES IR. 783.985 Agrodeal 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

12. (1) France TGI de Nanterre 23/03/206 / Cour d’Appel de Versailles 6/9/2007 Ferrero S.p.A. v. Agrodeal  TM Law : - Ferrero’s 3D mark distinctive (64% of consumers surveyed by GFK) ; not imposed by nature ; arbitrary, not ‘banal’ ; - Infringement of Article L 713-3 CPI : 63% or surveyed consumers considered Agrodeal’s producs as coming from Ferrero.  Unfair competition : Defendant unduly exploited Ferrero’s advertising and promotional efforts. However, since Ferrero S.p.A. did not request a distinct indemnification for Agrodeal’s parasitic activities (note : Ferrero France did not take part in the case) the relevant remedy is already included in the amount awarded to Ferrero S.p.A. for infringement of its registered trademark.  Remedies : - 100.000 € damages to Ferrero - 50 € per exclu additional infringment after two months from serving the decision - publication of decision in 2 newpapers (costs to Agrodeal) - 10.000 € ‘legal costs’ to Ferrero 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

13. (2) France TGI Nanterre 2/10/2007 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France v. SA Map  Trademarks : TIC TAC (3D + word marks) v. MIK MAKI MIK MAKI - SA Map 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law IR. 405.177

14. (2) France TGI Nanterre 2/10/2007 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France v. SA Map  TM Law : (L 716-1, 713-3, 713-2 IP Code) both Ferrero’s 3 D and word registered trademarks are infringed (L 713-3)  Unfair Competition : (Art. 1382 cc) ‘The mint drops sold under the name MIK MAKI have shape and size absolutely identical to those sold as TIC TAC so that consumers cannot tell the difference. These acts constitute Unfair Competition’  Remedies : - MIK MAKI sales 2004/2007 : 220.000 € : ‘since MIK MAKI retail price is half that of TIC TAC, the amount of sales lost by Ferrero should be increased’ - 130.000 € to Ferrero as damages / interests - Publication in 3 newpapers, costs to MAP - 6.000 € legal costs - Withdrawal of MIK MAKI products from market - Decision Provisionally Enforceable 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Statutory

15. (3) France Cour d’Appel de Rouen 19/11/2009 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France / Soremartec v. MisBis GIDA  Trademarks : ROCHER (3 D : T16 box chocolates, 3 D single praline, ‘naked praline’, industrial design, v : CAPITOL sold in Leclerc stores CAPITOL - Misbis GIDA 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Statutory IR. 668.171IR. 783.985 IR. 783.578

16. (3) France Cour d’Appel de Rouen 19/11/2009 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France / Soremartec v. MisBis GIDA  TM Law : Infringment of all of Ferrero’s registered trademarks (including the ‘naked praline’ which was considered null and void by the court of first instance, TGI Rouen)  Unfair Competition : - The whole range of CAPITOL products imitate systematically the packagings of the ROCHER brand. They take advantage of Ferrero’s investments in a parasitic way. They are sold in the same distribution channels, are presented to the public in the same way and follow systematically the commercial / marketing propositions Ferrero makes available according to the period of year. However the damage to Ferrero France may not be established as it has not been property substantiated.  Remedies : - 30.000 € damage award to Ferrero for Trademark infringements - Publication of the decision in 3 newpapers, costs to MAP - 1.000 € /day for any delay in the removal of the products from the market - 150 € for each future infrigement - 10.000 € legal costs 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

17. (4) France TGI Paris 6/11/2009 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France v. Candy Team GmbH  Trademarks : TIC TAC 3 D box v. PICK UP produced by defendand and sold in Aldi Stores in France 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law PICK UP – Candy Team GmbH IR. 405.177

18. (4) France TGI Paris 6/11/2009 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France v. Candy Team GmbH  TM Law : 3D Trademark valid :- box, straight sides, top label size and placement - higly recognized (> 80% surveyed consumers) - already considered valid by TGI in a 1980 decision - non ‘functional’ But no TM infringment :- ‘Notwithstanding the identity of the products the overall visual impression is not such as to create a risk of confusion on the origin of the products in a normally attentive consumer’ 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

19. (4) France TGI Paris 6/11/2009 Ferrero S.p.A. / Ferrero France v. Candy Team GmbH  Unfair Competition : Parasitic Copying (‘Parasitisme’) : - label in similar position - same type / shape of the pills - same calories per pill and number / weight of the pills - same mix of colors : orange / lemon / green - same multipack presentation : 4 boxes per pack in transparent ‘blisters’ - parasitisme very apparent considering that TIC TAC is a well known brand - clear intention on the part of defendant to exploit plaintiffs’ good will & investments - behavior contrary to loyal and healthy competition in the same business sector – lack of confusion is irrelevant  Remedies :- defendant’s PICK UP renenues > 2 million € in 3 years (2004-2007) - 200.000 € award to Ferrero - Publication of decision in 3 newpapers at defendant’s cost - 2.500 € legal costs to Ferrero - 150 € per each further infringment - Decision : provisionally enforceable 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

20. (5) Italy Naples Court of I° Instance (595/2006) and Court of Appeal (388/2008) Ferrero S.p.A v. Solen Cikolata GIDA  Trademarks :ROCHER 3 D + 3 D BOXES v. DIAMOND 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law DIAMOND- Solen IR. 783.985 IR. 783.578

21. (5) Italy Naples Court of I° Instance (595/2006) and Court of Appeal (388/2008) Ferrero S.p.A v. Solen Cikolata GIDA  Trademarks :DUPLO 3 D v. GO FRESH 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law GO FRESH - Solen IR. 686.106IR. 787.775 IR. 787.967 IR. 911.482

22. (5) Italy Naples Court of I° Instance (595/2006) and Court of Appeal (388/2008) Ferrero S.p.A v. Solen Cikolata GIDA  IP Law :- The DIAMOND and GO FRESH products appear on the Naples market and Ferrero rapidly obtains a Preliminary Injunction against Turkish manufacturer and importer for infringment of the 3 D ROCHER and 3 D DUPLO registered trademarks. - Decision of First Instance : trademark infringment, Unfair Competition, - C of A : 3 D ROCHER TM and 3 D DUPLO TM distinctives ; shape is not ‘mandated’ by nature. Solen’s use of different word marks does not eliminate the confusion.  Unfair Competition :- Violation of 2598 (1) (slavish imitation) and 2598 (2) (Art. 2598 cc) (‘misappropriation of competitor’s valuable features’) - ‘A trade dress is immediately perceived and exercises two crucial functions : to attract consumers and to distinguish products’. Trade dresses of fast moving consumer goods, like foodstuffs, are particularly exposed to the risk of ‘knock-offs’  Remedies :- First Instance : destruction of infringing products and 60.000 € damage award + legal costs to Ferrero. - Appeal : Solen condemned to pay costs of appeal : 14.000 € inclusive of Ferrero’s legal costs (13.000 €) 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

23. (6) Spain Granada Court of I° Instance (196/2008) and Audiencia Provincial (Appeal) (163/2009) Ferrero S.p.A / Ferrero Iberica v. Mantecados y Especialidades San Antonio  Trademarks :ROCHER (3 D + word) v. DOUCE SYMPHONIE GOURMANDISE DE ROCHER + LA BOMBONERIA 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law DOUCE SYMPHONIE GOURMANDISE DE ROCHER + LA BOMBONERIA - San Antonio IR. 668.171IR. 783.985

24. (6) Spain Granada Court of I° Instance (196/2008) and Audiencia Provincial (Appeal) (163/2009) Ferrero S.p.A / Ferrero Iberica v. Mantecados y Especialidades San Antonio  TM Law :- Preliminary Injunction obtained for the infringment of the ROCHER registered trade mark (word) ‘amply well-known in Spain’ but not for the infringment of the ROCHER 3D registrations : Ferrero may not monopolise rounded product shapes, plastic transparent boxes and gold tin foil wrapping. - I° Instance Decision : all the ROCHER registrations are infringed (word and 3 D) as 83% or surveyed consumers recognise the ROCHER ‘single praline’ 3 D registered trademark. There are no reasons to deem void the ‘naked praline’ 3 D trademark registration. San Antonio’s product presentations, in reproducing all the elements imagery, size, appearance, materials) of identical products sold under well-know marks, create a risk of likelihood of confusion. - Court of Appeal : the presence of the words ‘DE ROCHER’ in the denominaton ‘DOUCE SYMPHONIE GOURMANDISE DE ROCHER’ is clear evidence of the intention to confuse consumers.  Unfair Competition : No specific examination  Remedies :- 120.000 € damage award (+ legal costs) to Ferrero (all due to Ferrero S.p.A. for TM infringment). - no separate additional amount awarded for unfair competition. 3. HOW WE DEFEND OUR BRANDS : Available Legal Tools : Case Law

25. 1.Protect brands by extensively register their device and 3 D distinguishing elements 2.When TM infringement is found ‘unfair competition / parasitic copying’ does not add much 3.Evidence of consumers’ brand recognition and possible confusion is extremely important : utilise consumer surveys / polls; 4.Findings of unfair competition may be fundamental when no TM likelihood of confusion is established (v. France : CANDY TEAM case) 5.Challengers to registered devices and shapes of well known brands based on ‘functionality’ or ‘lack of distinctiveness’ will most probably fail when they come from unfair / parasitic competitors 6.Litigation costs in countries like Italy, France, Spain can be reasonable and may be partially recovered. 7.Some national IP enforcement systems prove to be particularly effective in curbing parasitic copying : (i) Non-nominal damage awards by The Courts, and (ii) rapid and efficient seizures by customs : 4. LEARNINGS