When Trademarks Meet Music: “Miss Italia” and the Limits of Brand Control

20 May 2026

by Silvia Capraro

Background of the Case

For those who did not grow up in Italy, Miss Italia may appear to be just another outdated television program. For its founder, however, the rights associated with the well-known beauty pageant are taken very seriously.

This became evident when Ditonellapiaga, an emerging Italian singer, released an album titled “Miss Italia”, featuring a track of the same name and accompanied by a deliberately ironic cover image. Shortly thereafter, she was brought before the Court of Rome in urgent proceedings under Article 700 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and Article 131 of Legislative Decree No. 30/2005 (the Italian Industrial Property Code).

The claimant, owner of the registered trademarks “Miss Italia” and “Concorso Nazionale Miss Italia,” sought an injunction prohibiting the use of the sign, the withdrawal of the album from the market, the removal of the title from digital platforms, and the imposition of financial penalties.

In response, the defendants argued that the expression had been used in a descriptive and ironic manner, justified by “due cause” within the meaning of Article 20(1)(c) of the Industrial Property Code.

Under Article 20, the proprietor of a registered trademark has the exclusive right to use the mark and may prevent third parties from using identical or similar signs, including in cases involving reputed marks, where such use, absent due cause, takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the mark’s distinctive character or reputation.

The Court’s Findings

The Court of Rome rejected the application for interim relief, finding that there was no prima facie case (Court of Rome, 17th Civil Division – Specialized IP Section, Order of 9 April 2026, Case No. 11649/2026).

First, the Court excluded similarity between the signs at issue. The registered “Miss Italia” trademarks consist of composite elements, combining verbal and figurative features, such as a stylized female profile with a crown, a diagonal sash, and a specific color scheme, which were absent from the album title.

Even considering only the verbal element, the Court stressed that the relevant sectors (beauty pageants and the music industry) are entirely distinct. As a result, the conditions for identity under Article 20(1)(a) were not met.

The Court also ruled out any likelihood of confusion, noting the absence of evidence of proximity between the respective markets. It further observed that the Nice Classification does not cover music or phonographic products in a manner relevant to the claimant’s registrations.

While acknowledging the strong reputation of the “Miss Italia” mark, the Court held that the claimant had failed to demonstrate either an unfair advantage obtained by the defendants or any detriment to the mark’s reputation or distinctive character, both of which are necessary to establish infringement in such circumstances.

Artistic Freedom and “Due Cause”

The most noteworthy aspect of the decision concerns the role of artistic freedom. The Court recognized that artistic expression, which is constitutionally protected, may constitute “due cause” for the lawful use of a trademark under Article 20(1)(c) of the Industrial Property Code.

The judgment highlights a fundamental distinction: while a trademark serves to indicate commercial origin, the title of a creative work identifies and conveys its expressive content. Where the use of a trademark within an artistic work neither confers an undue commercial advantage nor harms the mark’s reputation or distinctiveness, such use may be considered lawful.

In this case, the expression “Miss Italia” was used descriptively, referring to a specific cultural stereotype: the archetype of a beauty pageant winner. The use was clearly ironic, if not self-ironic, and did not function as a trademark.

On this basis, the Court confirmed the absence of a prima facie infringement and dismissed the application for interim measures. It also ordered the claimant to reimburse the defendants’ legal costs, including general expenses and statutory charges.

Concluding Remarks

This decision forms part of a growing body of case law aimed at defining the boundaries within which parody, criticism, and artistic expression may legitimately incorporate third-party trademarks without infringing exclusive rights. It reflects an increasing tendency to interpret trademark law in light of fundamental rights.

The dispute, however, is unlikely to end here and is expected to continue in the subsequent stages of litigation.