Rivista del Diritto Commerciale e del diritto generale delle Obbligazioni

Abstract: Independent copyrights and moral right of the author - In the Italian copyright law, it is provided that the exclusive right of the author is broken down into independent faculties. The essay questions the applicability of this independence to the author’s moral right and whether, after his death, the violation of moral right can be asserted by family members and not by heirs.

Summary: 1. La musica non è merce neppure dopo la morte dell’autore: liti sulla legittimità di usi mercantili della musica. – 2. La scomposizione in “diritti indipendenti” dell’esclusiva accordata all’autore nella l. 633/1941. – 3. La scomposizione e l’interpretazione delle licenze autoriali. – 4. L’indipendenza dei diritti di utilizzazione economica esclusiva dell’opera e il “diritto morale” dell’autore. – 5. Conclusioni.

Keywords: Music and commodities — Exclusive right — Independent faculties — Author’s moral right after his death.

Summary: 1. La vicenda affrontata dalla Suprema Corte di Cassazione. – 2. Il Tribunale di Milano nel “caso Inter”. – 3. L’impostazione tradizionale. – 3.1 (Segue) Conseguenze applicative. – 4. La nostra impostazione. – 5. Profili problematici.

Abstract: Public-private Company, Management of State-Owned Assets and Insolvency of the Private Partner – The development of state-owned assets as a public interest pursued by the public administration may be achieved through the establishment of a public-private company. The subsequent insolvency of the private shareholder gives rise to a conflict between various interests: on the one hand, the public interest in the continued management of the state-owned asset; on the other, the interest of the insolvent private shareholder and his creditors in realising the value of the shareholding within the scope of insolvency proceedings. The importance of preventive statutory solutions such as redeemable shares under article 2437-sexies of the Civil Code is highlighted, in order to regulate the exit of the private partner, allowing the company or the public partner to redeem the shares of the insolvent private partner. Furthermore, the authoritative prerogatives of the granting authority are analysed, in particular the powers of decadence and revocation of the state concession provided for by the Navigation Code. The exercise of these powers, though legitimate, may have the indirect effect of excluding the private partner and affect the balance of the corporate relationship, creating the risk of a reduction in the safeguards inherent in the corporate model and in the economic expectations of the private partner and its creditors.  

Summary: 1. La scelta del socio privato. – 2. La liquidazione giudiziale del socio privato e l’interruzione del rapporto sociale. – 3. Le azioni riscattabili previste dallo statuto come modalità di esclusione del socio privato sottoposto alla liquidazione giudiziale. – 4. Decadenza e revoca della concessione demaniale. – 5. Conclusioni.  

Keywords: Public-private Company — State-owned Assets — Redeemable Shares — Decadence — Revocation — Insolvency — Company Law.

Abstract: Joint ownership of the trademark between market information and competition on the merits – The traditional approach, which is still the prevailing view, adopted by legal scholars dealing with joint ownership of trademarks has focused primarily on the model of trademark exploitation and, in particular, on cases of direct (or productive) use of the trademark by the joint owners: a situation that raises sensitive issues in relation to respect for the distinctive function of the trademark and the fundamental principles of trademark law; problems not dissimilar to those posed by non-exclusive licences (and, where deemed admissible, also by partial transfers, if they concern similar products or services). However, a review of case law shows that the most recurrent problems concern the preliminary aspect of deciding on the model of exploitation to be adopted: that is, cases where the co-owners disagree on how to exploit the trademark and the question arises as to what the applicable decision-making quorum should be. This raises issues of coordination between the exclusive rights of the co-owners, which have been overlooked in theoretical discussions despite being not only sensitive and complex issues but also specific to cases of co-ownership. This essay puts forward some proposed solutions to these problems, developed in light of the evolution of the distinctive function of the trademark and the recognition of its advertising function, within the framework of systematic coordination with the regulation of joint ownership of exclusive rights in other areas of intellectual property law.  

Summary: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Contitolarità del marchio e tutela del consumatore: il problema della ammissibilità della fattispecie. – 3. Contitolarità del marchio e tutela degli interessi del (con)titolare: il problema della decisione del modello di sfruttamento del marchio e i limiti dell’approccio tradizionale; rilevanza della tutela della funzione pubblicitaria del marchio. – 4. Il couso del marchio: inapplicabilità dell’art. 1102 cod. civ.; competenza del gruppo a deliberare il couso, tanto produttivo quanto negoziale. – 5. Il quorum deliberativo richiesto per determinare il modello di sfruttamento economico del marchio: necessità del consenso unanime dei contitolari, quale che sia il modello di sfruttamento prescelto.  

Keywords: Trademarks — Joint ownership — Trademark exploitation — Decision making rules.

Abstract: Obligatory relationship, contractual position and corporate participation in the regime of legal community between spouses - Legal communion is a juridical institution for the family, for the regulation of the patrimonial and economic relationships that the spouses can establish and develop during the legal bond, in compliance with the evolution of the interpretative and exegetical criteria of legal communion as necessary, records the changes in the life needs of the family unit. The evolution of the socio-economic relations between the spouses, while allowing to overcome the merely solidarity vision of the legal regime, must start from the consideration that the patrimonial relationships, which the single spouses establish with third parties, derive from contractual agreements in which the synallagma it takes the form of the formation of mandatory personal rights and the related creation of credit and debt relationships.  

Summary: 1. Il credito nella determinazione di inclusione della comunione legale dei coniugi: studio dei distinti piani della posizione contrattuale e del valore patrimoniale positivo del credito. – 2. Partecipazioni societarie e comunione legale tra coniugi: necessaria distinzione tra gli effetti giuridici delle varie partecipazioni in società in funzione di garantire la posizione giuridica del coniuge non interveniente. – 3. Contratto preliminare come archetipo insufficiente della misura dell’autonomia negoziale del coniuge: condizioni, termini e modalità di adempimento quali elementi scriminanti l’inclusione del bene oggetto del preliminare in comunione legale.

Keywords: Legal communion — Economic relationships — Mandatory report — Corporate participation.

Abstract: Carlo Goldoni, the “antagonist” playwright, and the “long 19th century” of copyright history – This paper analyzes several events of interest regarding the history of copyright, parody, and unfair competition involving the Italian playwright Carlo Goldoni (1707–1793) in mid-eighteenth-century Venice. In particular, it reconstructs a legal dispute surrounding an ancient commercial usage—which granted only theater companies the right to have manuscripts of their plays copied or printed—attested at the time in Venice, as early as Elizabethan England (the Ben Jonson case), and later in revolutionary France in the late eighteenth century (the petition of Pierre Antoine de La Place, Charles-Simon Favart, and Carlo Goldoni). The case confirms the thesis of Italian scholar Paolo Spada according to which, unlike what happened with inventors, the interests of literary authors were asserted not in harmony with the interests of industry, but in opposition to them; not unlike what is said with regard to authors of theatrical works with respect to theatrical managers.  

Summary: 1. Una duplice ricorrenza e un primato della Rivista del diritto commerciale. – 2. La storia del diritto e le storie altre. – 3. La «doppia vita» del testo teatrale e il doppio «antagonismo» degli interessi degli autori teatrali con gli interessi dell’industria editoriale e dell’impresariato teatrale. – 3.1. Il contratto di Carlo Goldoni con l’impresario Girolamo Medebach e con lo stampatore Giuseppe Bettinelli. – 3.2. La richiesta del privilegio da parte dello stampatore. – 3.3. La scadenza del contratto tra Goldoni e Medebach e il nuovo contratto fra Goldoni e Antonio Vendramin. – 3.4. L’edizione fiorentina Paperini e la Lettera dell’avvocato Carlo Goldoni ad un amico suo in Venezia. – 3.5. La anonima Risposta data alla lettera dell’avvocato Carlo Goldoni dall’amico suo di Venezia. – 3.6. Le liti avviate da Medebach e Bettinelli contro Goldoni innanzi ai Riformatori dello Studio di Padova. – 3.6.1. La difesa di Stefano Sciugliaga in Garmogliesi nell’interesse di Goldoni. – 3.6.1.1. La tesi del contratto di società tra autore e stampatore, della sua modificazione e del diritto naturale d’autore. – 3.6.1.2. La tesi subordinata del contratto di vendita tra autore e stampatore e la priorità dell’inadempimento di Bettinelli. – 3.6.1.3. Le conclusioni e il diritto di Goldoni ad avere l’ultima parola sul testo teatrale e sul testo letterario. – 3.7. La definizione transattiva della lite tra Bettinelli e Goldoni. – 4. La «polemica» di Goldoni contro l’abate Pietro Chiari: parodia o concorrenza sleale fra impresari teatrali? – 5. L’«Ottocento secolo lungo» della storia del diritto d’autore: dalla petizione goldoniana del 1792 al «caso Salgari».  

Keywords: History of law — Copyright.

Abstract: Regarding the effect of shareholders’ agreements – The traditional and still dominant view in Italy is that a shareholder agreement can only affect the shareholders who signed the agreement, while it can never be enforced against the corporation or any third party. Consequently, in the case of a breach, courts have generally denied all enforcement mechanisms that would impact the corporation (such as specific performance or challenges to decisions made during shareholders meetings), effectively leaving monetary damages as the only actionable remedy. The result is that the non-breaching party is often only partially compensated for the damage suffered. For this reason, over the years scholars started to question whether it is possible to broaden the range of available remedies. This article seeks to contribute to this debate. First, it provides an account of the legal grounds and principles that support the traditional view, and discusses the arguments that have been advanced in favor of more flexible resolutions. Second, it examines whether the availability of monetary damages is the most efficient solution or whether, on the contrary, the admissibility of multiple remedies could lead to better economic outcomes. Lastly, it attempts to draw some limited conclusions based on the results of the economic analysis.  

Summary: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Casistica. – 3. Sugli strumenti esperibili contro l’inadempimento dei patti parasociali. – 3.1. Strumenti giudiziali a carattere reale e loro effetti sulla società. – 3.2. Strumenti negoziali rafforzativi dell’efficacia obbligatoria del patto. – 4. Ostacoli giuridici ad un utilizzo di strumenti non meramente obbligatori. Principi ostativi e relative ipotesi di superamento. – 4.1. Il principio di competenza assembleare. – 4.2. Il principio di libertà di voto dei soci. – 4.3. Lo schermo della personalità giuridica della società. – 4.4. La tassatività delle cause di impugnazione delle delibere. – 4.5. L’efficacia inter partes del divieto di alienazione ex art. 1379 cod. civ. – 4.6. Sintesi. – 5. Tutela obbligatoria, tutela reale ed efficienza. – 5.1. La tesi che afferma la maggiore efficienza della tutela meramente obbligatoria. – 5.2. Osservazioni critiche. – 6. La prospettiva dell’analisi economica.- 6.1. La teoria dell’efficient breach. – 6.2. I suoi limiti. – 6.2.1. Critiche alla teoria in generale. – 6.2.2. Inapplicabilità della teoria al contesto dei patti parasociali. – 6.2.3. Mancata considerazione della prospettiva ex ante. – 7. Alcune conclusioni.  

Keywords: Shareholder agreements — Breach of contract — Remedies — Monetary damages — Specific performance — Enforcement mechanisms.