False Trademarks and Foreign Goods: The Cassation Court Ruling 20191/2025 and the Limits of the Offence under Art. 517 c.p.

The protection of industrial property and market integrity are fundamental pillars of our legal system. In this context, the offence of selling industrial products with false trademarks, provided for by Article 517 of the Italian Penal Code, plays a crucial role. However, when it comes to goods originating from abroad and destined for other countries, the configurability of such an offence requires careful evaluation. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 20191 of 2025 (filed on 30/05/2025), has provided important clarifications, precisely delineating the scope of application of this criminal provision in the context of international trade.

The Legal Issue: Goods in Transit and Art. 517 c.p.

The case involved a defendant, G. Y., accused of the offence under Article 517 c.p., namely the sale of industrial products with false trademarks, names, or indications, capable of deceiving the buyer about the origin, provenance, or quality of the product. The peculiarity of the situation lay in the fact that the goods in question originated from a foreign state and were destined for another foreign state, without ever having been introduced into the Italian domestic market or presented to customs for clearance. The Court of Trieste, on 15/05/2024, had dismissed the charges, a decision later confirmed by the Supreme Court. The central question before the judges was whether, in such a scenario of international transit, the offence was configurable.

The crime of selling industrial products with false trademarks is not configurable, due to the absence of the conduct of "putting into circulation," in the case of goods originating from a foreign state that are destined for another foreign state, have never left the holder's sphere of availability, are not intended for the domestic market, and have not even been presented or intended to be presented to customs.

This maxim encapsulates the Cassation Court's orientation. The key element is the absence of "putting into circulation." But what exactly does "putting into circulation" mean in this context? It is not a mere physical movement of goods, but rather their introduction into the domestic commercial circuit, with the concrete possibility of deceiving Italian consumers. The offence under Art. 517 c.p. aims to protect public trust and commercial loyalty within the national market. If the goods do not enter this market, the typical conduct of the offence is not perfected. The Court also referred to Art. 6 c.p. on the territoriality of criminal law, emphasizing that the offence must be committed within the territory of the State to be punishable under Italian law. Furthermore, Law No. 350/2003, Art. 4, paragraph 49, which aims to combat counterfeiting and falsification of "Made in Italy" products, applies to goods intended for domestic consumption or otherwise presented as Italian. Similarly, Council Regulation (EC) No. 608/2013, while concerning the application of intellectual property rights by customs authorities, presupposes an interference with the Union market, which does not occur in cases of mere transit.

Analysis by the Court of Cassation: "Putting into Circulation" as an Essential Element

The Cassation Court, presided over by S. G. and with A. A. as rapporteur, rejected the appeal of the Public Prosecutor P. G., confirming the decision of the Court of Trieste. The ruling aligns with previous consistent judgments (such as No. 8734 of 2010 Rv. 246215-01), reinforcing the principle that the "putting into circulation" of goods within the national territory is an indispensable constituent element for the configurability of the crime of selling products with false trademarks. The judges highlighted that the goods in question:

• Originated from a foreign state and were destined for another foreign state.
• Had never left the holder's sphere of availability.
• Were not intended for the Italian domestic market.
• Had not even been presented or intended to be presented to Italian customs for entry into consumption.

These cumulative factors were decisive in excluding the typical conduct of the offence. The absence of actual contact with the national market and the absence of an intent to deceive Italian consumers render the conduct not punishable under Article 517 c.p.

Practical Implications and Market Protection

This ruling is of considerable importance for companies operating in international trade and for legal professionals. It clarifies that the mere transit of goods with potentially false trademarks through Italian territory, without any intention of introducing them into the domestic market, does not in itself constitute an offence. This does not mean, however, that the system is devoid of protection. On the contrary, current legislation provides effective tools to combat counterfeiting and commercial fraud when such conduct is actually aimed at harming the Italian market or consumers. The ruling reiterates the need to distinguish between legitimate international transit activities and attempts at fraud or counterfeiting that have an impact on our market. It is a balance between the freedom of international trade and the protection of national interests.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 20191 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation offers a valuable contribution to case law on offences against industry and commerce. By emphasizing the essential nature of "putting into circulation" in the domestic market, the Court has provided a clear criterion for distinguishing between criminally relevant conduct and that which, despite involving goods with false trademarks, remains outside the scope of Article 517 c.p. due to its purely cross-border nature. For industry operators, this means greater legal certainty in import-export operations and confirmation that criminal law intervenes where there is an actual danger to public trust and commercial loyalty within the territory of the State.