All the contents of the site such as images, videos and texts are published unpublished and are the exclusive property of the Copyright of the Church of Cornelius.

Any type of reproduction, even partial, is prohibited, otherwise it will be prosecuted with all means permitted by Italian law.

The “Studio Esoterico Cornelio” brand is a Registered Trademark in all countries of the European Union and San Marino, Switzerland, Panama, United States of America: the aforementioned International Trademark is the exclusive property of the Church of Cornelio and its value has been estimated value around 5 million euros.

  trademark report see here

An immediate injunction will be requested from the Judiciary of any sites or videos that use the above-mentioned trademark, obtaining the blocking of websites or videos or links that make a deceptive or anti-competitive use of the trademark. The advertising campaigns of search engines such as Google Ads and I Register, i.e. resellers of domain names and hosting, i.e. web spaces for online sites, are also considered.

However, if a service or product is sold by an economic operator, through an online market and without the consent of the trademark owner, the latter can oppose the sale, offer or advertising pursuant to the rules set out in art. 20 of the Intellectual Property Code.

The owner of a trademark may prohibit the operator of an online marketplace from advertising the services using said trademark offered in the aforementioned marketplace, if such advertising does not allow, or only with difficulty allows, the normally informed and reasonably attentive Internet user to know whether these services come from the owner of the brand or from a company economically linked to the latter or, on the contrary, from a third party. The art. 14, no. 1, of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000, 2000/31/EC, and art. 17 of Legislative Decree 9 April 2003, n. 70 apply to the Manager of an online marketplace if he has not played an active role that allows him to have knowledge or control over the stored data.

In other words, the manager of an online market cannot be considered exempt from Liability if he was aware of facts or circumstances on the basis of which a diligent Operator should have ascertained the illicit nature of the offers and, in the event that he was aware, has not promptly acted in accordance with n. 1, letter. b), of the aforementioned art. 14.

In light of this, it is incumbent on the registers and suppliers of domain names and hosting to revoke any benefit granted to subjects who use the keywords “CORNELIO” or “STUDIO ESOTERICO CORNELIO” or their translation into any language. And in fact, if this were not to happen there would be an infringement of the rights recognized to the owner of a trademark. In this regard, consider that the art. 20 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for the possibility for the trademark owner to oppose the sale, advertising and offer of the product by unauthorized parties, allowing the same to obtain compensation from those who violate these provisions as compensation for the damages suffered from the violation of the legally recognized right. The same fate applies to those who mislead a person, exploiting a brand known to have advantages and therefore to those who engage in unfair competition, and even in this last case compensation for damages is foreseen pursuant to art. 2600 civil code

But the violations do not stop at the civil sphere and therefore do not remain solely in the economic sphere. And in fact, if a Register did not stop this type of competition it would end up perpetrating illicit competition, given that it would allow others to use another’s trademark, without the owner having given consent. In the context of illicit competition, remember that our legal system gives the offended person (to be identified in this case the trademark owner) the possibility of proceeding through a formal complaint.

Well, the art. 513 c.p. provides that the use of fraudulent means to prevent or disturb the exercise of an activity constitutes a crime; but even more so if acts of violence or threats are detected in exercising competition, this is criminally punishable pursuant to art. 513 bis c.p.

And therefore, the continuation of activities could lead to many consequences.

With particular reference to distinctive signs, in addition to the well-known phenomenon of domain grabbing (bad faith registration of a domain corresponding to the trademark of others), the illicit use of distinctive signs of third parties as keywords for the purposes of of the so-called keyword advertising.

Keywords are, precisely, keywords that are used by website owners in order to make links to their sites appear when an online search is carried out. Search engines have long since started selling advertising space related to certain keywords.

To give the best-known example, Google’s Adwords positioning service makes some sponsored links appear on the sidelines of the “natural” search results, i.e. the links of those operators who have inserted a specific keyword corresponding to the searched word. by the user, in their advertisements. The advertiser, in exchange for the positioning service, then pays Google a certain sum for each click received from their sponsored link (so-called pay per click).

Well, the owner of a commercial activity who, to draw users’ attention to his own products or services, inserts a keyword identical or similar to a competitor’s brand into the advertising spaces purchased by the search engine, can be accused of counterfeiting. of brand.

In Italy, the jurisprudence has regulated in different ways, over time, the online use of other people’s trademarks for commercial purposes. on the subject of keyword advertising, the Court of Milan has established that the use of other people’s trademarks as keywords for advertising purposes constitutes, in addition to unfair competition, also trademark infringement when the use also occurs for a distinctive purpose (for example, at inside the advertisement), since such use is likely to generate confusion among consumers and, in the case of well-known brands, also to generate a profit for the user and damage for the owner of the brand.